TRUST STFC to tell FA their concerns over Premier League B team proposal

The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald: The County Ground could entertain Premier League B sides if the FA's proposals come to pass The County Ground could entertain Premier League B sides if the FA's proposals come to pass

TRUST STFC will write to the Football Association to voice their concerns about a recent commission’s plans to introduce Premier League B teams into the Football League.

The panel, headed by chairman Greg Dyke, presented their blueprint for the future success of the English game earlier this month to widespread criticism from senior figures and fans of lower league clubs.

Dyke’s thinktank suggested that all top-flight sides would be invited to enter a B team into a new League Three, slotted in between League Two and the Conference; a strategy that has not gone down well with teams in and around those divisions.

Now the Trust, which represents Swindon Town supporters, has told the Advertiser that they plan to let the FA know exactly how fans of the Wiltshire club feel about the proposals - and they are encouraging the County Ground faithful to contribute their thoughts.

In a statement, the Trust said: “The recent publication of the FA's four-point plan to boost English football is yet another sign of the growing gulf between the sport's administrators and top clubs and the grassroots of football.

“The long-standing and successful structure of English football is unique in the world, revered and sought to be replicated elsewhere.

“The FA’s proposal to introduce B teams at a League Three level within the Football League – and allow further clubs to join at the Conference Premier level – will represent the death of local clubs which are at the heart of their communities.

“The desire for change and a movement against the B team proposal amongst supporters is clear, and this issue is serving as a focal point for the anger and discontent felt towards all those who run our national game.

“The Supporters' Trust had endorsed the evidence presented by Supporters Direct to the FA commission concerning B teams or feeder clubs in that “The board of the Trust were concerned to learn that written evidence provided by Supporters Direct to the commission on behalf of supporters’ trusts has yet to be acknowledged, also that the FA have provided no summary of the consultation exercise and the responses to them in order to provide transparency on the process.

“With the FA’s ‘next steps’ indicating a further stage of consultation this year the Trust expects the FA will now consult with all stakeholders, including invites to bodies including the Football League clubs, the Football Conference, Supporters Direct and others to speak directly with the FA.

“If and when a consultation occurs, Trust STFC will be attending the Supporters Summit in July and will now be writing directly to the FA to reflect the views of Swindon Town supporters.

“You can add your voice and directly contribute to the campaign to change football for good by joining the Trust and help us provide feedback to these proposals.”

Standard membership of the Trust is available for £1 during 2014 and anyone interested in joining should visit www.truststfc.com.

Comments (72)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:26am Fri 23 May 14

Brainy_G93 says...

Oh give it a rest.
Oh give it a rest. Brainy_G93
  • Score: -47

6:31am Fri 23 May 14

oo-r-ya? says...

We should all be supporting the Trust regarding this matter which could see the end of football as we know it in this country. The fatcats think only of the money they can make in the short term and not about the good of the game as a whole.
We should all be supporting the Trust regarding this matter which could see the end of football as we know it in this country. The fatcats think only of the money they can make in the short term and not about the good of the game as a whole. oo-r-ya?
  • Score: 30

7:17am Fri 23 May 14

sputnik says...

we all know that if this were to happen, the B teams would be full of young foreigners brought over for development. If the idea is to improve the England players then it would have to be stipulated that only English players could be included in these B teams
we all know that if this were to happen, the B teams would be full of young foreigners brought over for development. If the idea is to improve the England players then it would have to be stipulated that only English players could be included in these B teams sputnik
  • Score: 11

7:31am Fri 23 May 14

umpcah says...

Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.
[quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads. umpcah
  • Score: 12

7:38am Fri 23 May 14

port de soller says...

think back to the good old days.Dv 1/2/3/4
This premiere Leauge is where the rich get Richer.Seems the FA have no idea.no thought for the lower leauge clubs in Div 1/2/conference.
Where will it end.Feel we all know will be Premeire and Championship.
Time for all UK Fans to be heard have a general Public vote.
Top flight clubs should be limited to sign UK Players.
In la liga here up until a few years ago Basque Clubs could only sign local player from there province no matter what leauge they were in.Alas as with the UK spain also are havig mega problems where a few clubs get Rich and the rest struggle.
closing note about time STFC Fans were updated on our club situation?????
think back to the good old days.Dv 1/2/3/4 This premiere Leauge is where the rich get Richer.Seems the FA have no idea.no thought for the lower leauge clubs in Div 1/2/conference. Where will it end.Feel we all know will be Premeire and Championship. Time for all UK Fans to be heard have a general Public vote. Top flight clubs should be limited to sign UK Players. In la liga here up until a few years ago Basque Clubs could only sign local player from there province no matter what leauge they were in.Alas as with the UK spain also are havig mega problems where a few clubs get Rich and the rest struggle. closing note about time STFC Fans were updated on our club situation????? port de soller
  • Score: 6

7:53am Fri 23 May 14

London Red says...

umpcah wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.
I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring
.
No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too
.
Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better
.
Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target?
.
He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc
.
The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to
Spark debate
.
Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC
[quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.[/p][/quote]I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC London Red
  • Score: -2

8:25am Fri 23 May 14

smirg kcab says...

port de soller wrote:
think back to the good old days.Dv 1/2/3/4
This premiere Leauge is where the rich get Richer.Seems the FA have no idea.no thought for the lower leauge clubs in Div 1/2/conference.
Where will it end.Feel we all know will be Premeire and Championship.
Time for all UK Fans to be heard have a general Public vote.
Top flight clubs should be limited to sign UK Players.
In la liga here up until a few years ago Basque Clubs could only sign local player from there province no matter what leauge they were in.Alas as with the UK spain also are havig mega problems where a few clubs get Rich and the rest struggle.
closing note about time STFC Fans were updated on our club situation?????
Oh come on.
What will dyke say,? we are a small team with no money, no ambition, and been in admin twice, relegated for financial fraud, and we don't know who even owns our pathetically run club.
We shouldn't even be in division 2 taking that into count as posted @ 08.25a.m. 23/05/2104
Get real
[quote][p][bold]port de soller[/bold] wrote: think back to the good old days.Dv 1/2/3/4 This premiere Leauge is where the rich get Richer.Seems the FA have no idea.no thought for the lower leauge clubs in Div 1/2/conference. Where will it end.Feel we all know will be Premeire and Championship. Time for all UK Fans to be heard have a general Public vote. Top flight clubs should be limited to sign UK Players. In la liga here up until a few years ago Basque Clubs could only sign local player from there province no matter what leauge they were in.Alas as with the UK spain also are havig mega problems where a few clubs get Rich and the rest struggle. closing note about time STFC Fans were updated on our club situation?????[/p][/quote]Oh come on. What will dyke say,? we are a small team with no money, no ambition, and been in admin twice, relegated for financial fraud, and we don't know who even owns our pathetically run club. We shouldn't even be in division 2 taking that into count as posted @ 08.25a.m. 23/05/2104 Get real smirg kcab
  • Score: -8

8:34am Fri 23 May 14

whickergoose says...

London Red wrote:
umpcah wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.
I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring
.
No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too
.
Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better
.
Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target?
.
He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc
.
The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to
Spark debate
.
Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC
If you find the subject boring then don't read the article. Its not compulsory!
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.[/p][/quote]I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC[/p][/quote]If you find the subject boring then don't read the article. Its not compulsory! whickergoose
  • Score: 7

8:53am Fri 23 May 14

the wizard says...

London Red wrote:
umpcah wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.
I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring
.
No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too
.
Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better
.
Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target?
.
He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc
.
The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to
Spark debate
.
Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC
I seem to remember that you were about the only voice here that was all in favour of the suggestion of this B team division, among rafts of objectors. Now many others at higher levels have added their voices also siding with many of the viewpoints here. Admittedly this is old hat, but at least it is letting the majority know the viewpoint of the Trust, which is something we don't hear enough about. This will run and run for a long time yet until Dycke decides along with some committee, no doubt, where to take it from here . Maybe Brainy is right, maybe we are all wrong, but no doubt the future will be changed which is why it is important that all avenues are totally explored first. As you have point out to others on previous issues in years gone by, you don't have to comment on it whether you agree with it or not. This time period is reknown for slow news days, it is something we all have to grin and bear, but this weekend holds an absolute bounty of events in many sports from Grand Prix to Rugby and so on. Lots to look forward to, lots to enjoy, so if you want you can sweep this lot under the carpet, but it will be back at some point for sure.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.[/p][/quote]I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC[/p][/quote]I seem to remember that you were about the only voice here that was all in favour of the suggestion of this B team division, among rafts of objectors. Now many others at higher levels have added their voices also siding with many of the viewpoints here. Admittedly this is old hat, but at least it is letting the majority know the viewpoint of the Trust, which is something we don't hear enough about. This will run and run for a long time yet until Dycke decides along with some committee, no doubt, where to take it from here . Maybe Brainy is right, maybe we are all wrong, but no doubt the future will be changed which is why it is important that all avenues are totally explored first. As you have point out to others on previous issues in years gone by, you don't have to comment on it whether you agree with it or not. This time period is reknown for slow news days, it is something we all have to grin and bear, but this weekend holds an absolute bounty of events in many sports from Grand Prix to Rugby and so on. Lots to look forward to, lots to enjoy, so if you want you can sweep this lot under the carpet, but it will be back at some point for sure. the wizard
  • Score: 5

9:44am Fri 23 May 14

themoonraker says...

sputnik wrote:
we all know that if this were to happen, the B teams would be full of young foreigners brought over for development. If the idea is to improve the England players then it would have to be stipulated that only English players could be included in these B teams
.....EU restraint of traide wil not allow that
[quote][p][bold]sputnik[/bold] wrote: we all know that if this were to happen, the B teams would be full of young foreigners brought over for development. If the idea is to improve the England players then it would have to be stipulated that only English players could be included in these B teams[/p][/quote].....EU restraint of traide wil not allow that themoonraker
  • Score: 1

9:44am Fri 23 May 14

themoonraker says...

sputnik wrote:
we all know that if this were to happen, the B teams would be full of young foreigners brought over for development. If the idea is to improve the England players then it would have to be stipulated that only English players could be included in these B teams
.....EU restraint of traide wil not allow that
[quote][p][bold]sputnik[/bold] wrote: we all know that if this were to happen, the B teams would be full of young foreigners brought over for development. If the idea is to improve the England players then it would have to be stipulated that only English players could be included in these B teams[/p][/quote].....EU restraint of traide wil not allow that themoonraker
  • Score: 1

9:59am Fri 23 May 14

Wilesy says...

If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership.

We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment.

I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'.

A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.
If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already. Wilesy
  • Score: 5

10:00am Fri 23 May 14

Wiltshireman says...

port de soller wrote:
think back to the good old days.Dv 1/2/3/4
This premiere Leauge is where the rich get Richer.Seems the FA have no idea.no thought for the lower leauge clubs in Div 1/2/conference.
Where will it end.Feel we all know will be Premeire and Championship.
Time for all UK Fans to be heard have a general Public vote.
Top flight clubs should be limited to sign UK Players.
In la liga here up until a few years ago Basque Clubs could only sign local player from there province no matter what leauge they were in.Alas as with the UK spain also are havig mega problems where a few clubs get Rich and the rest struggle.
closing note about time STFC Fans were updated on our club situation?????
But that was not a La Liga ruling only by the club itself. If the Basque clubs wished to sign anyone outside of the region there was no ruling that said they could not.
[quote][p][bold]port de soller[/bold] wrote: think back to the good old days.Dv 1/2/3/4 This premiere Leauge is where the rich get Richer.Seems the FA have no idea.no thought for the lower leauge clubs in Div 1/2/conference. Where will it end.Feel we all know will be Premeire and Championship. Time for all UK Fans to be heard have a general Public vote. Top flight clubs should be limited to sign UK Players. In la liga here up until a few years ago Basque Clubs could only sign local player from there province no matter what leauge they were in.Alas as with the UK spain also are havig mega problems where a few clubs get Rich and the rest struggle. closing note about time STFC Fans were updated on our club situation?????[/p][/quote]But that was not a La Liga ruling only by the club itself. If the Basque clubs wished to sign anyone outside of the region there was no ruling that said they could not. Wiltshireman
  • Score: 1

10:12am Fri 23 May 14

LeGod says...

The trusts and all league clubs in the country should protest at this idiot Dykes proposal. We have league now where potential players can develop as they gain experience as we have done with many players that have ended up in the premier league. What Dyke needs to get a grip of is the foreign managers that are in this country that then bring in all foreign players as the majority of the premier league clubs do. We will next Man Utd bringing in Dutch and German players Wenger has all his French players and im afraid to say there are some poor quality foreign players in the premier league and Arsenal is a good example of that.
The problem is in this country the premier league basically rule Dyke and he is their puppet they have all the power and they don't give a toss about anything outside their league as we all have to feed on scraps.
If they introduce this B league it will be the death of a lot of clubs.
The trusts and all league clubs in the country should protest at this idiot Dykes proposal. We have league now where potential players can develop as they gain experience as we have done with many players that have ended up in the premier league. What Dyke needs to get a grip of is the foreign managers that are in this country that then bring in all foreign players as the majority of the premier league clubs do. We will next Man Utd bringing in Dutch and German players Wenger has all his French players and im afraid to say there are some poor quality foreign players in the premier league and Arsenal is a good example of that. The problem is in this country the premier league basically rule Dyke and he is their puppet they have all the power and they don't give a toss about anything outside their league as we all have to feed on scraps. If they introduce this B league it will be the death of a lot of clubs. LeGod
  • Score: 5

10:17am Fri 23 May 14

London Red says...

whickergoose wrote:
London Red wrote:
umpcah wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote: Oh give it a rest.
I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.
I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC
If you find the subject boring then don't read the article. Its not compulsory!
I didn't - I just posted a comment in order to try and get something more of interest either debated or published
[quote][p][bold]whickergoose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.[/p][/quote]I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC[/p][/quote]If you find the subject boring then don't read the article. Its not compulsory![/p][/quote]I didn't - I just posted a comment in order to try and get something more of interest either debated or published London Red
  • Score: 0

10:20am Fri 23 May 14

London Red says...

the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
umpcah wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote: Oh give it a rest.
I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.
I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC
I seem to remember that you were about the only voice here that was all in favour of the suggestion of this B team division, among rafts of objectors. Now many others at higher levels have added their voices also siding with many of the viewpoints here. Admittedly this is old hat, but at least it is letting the majority know the viewpoint of the Trust, which is something we don't hear enough about. This will run and run for a long time yet until Dycke decides along with some committee, no doubt, where to take it from here . Maybe Brainy is right, maybe we are all wrong, but no doubt the future will be changed which is why it is important that all avenues are totally explored first. As you have point out to others on previous issues in years gone by, you don't have to comment on it whether you agree with it or not. This time period is reknown for slow news days, it is something we all have to grin and bear, but this weekend holds an absolute bounty of events in many sports from Grand Prix to Rugby and so on. Lots to look forward to, lots to enjoy, so if you want you can sweep this lot under the carpet, but it will be back at some point for sure.
Wiz not sur ewhat your issue with me is - but at least if you are going to constantly attack me actually do it on something I have said
.
I have never been in favour of this so not sure why you think I was?
.
All I have ever said is if this is going to be debated can people actually at least debate reality - not made uop versions of what the B league would be - i.e. Squads full of mature international players and multi million pound January signings to secure promotion
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.[/p][/quote]I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC[/p][/quote]I seem to remember that you were about the only voice here that was all in favour of the suggestion of this B team division, among rafts of objectors. Now many others at higher levels have added their voices also siding with many of the viewpoints here. Admittedly this is old hat, but at least it is letting the majority know the viewpoint of the Trust, which is something we don't hear enough about. This will run and run for a long time yet until Dycke decides along with some committee, no doubt, where to take it from here . Maybe Brainy is right, maybe we are all wrong, but no doubt the future will be changed which is why it is important that all avenues are totally explored first. As you have point out to others on previous issues in years gone by, you don't have to comment on it whether you agree with it or not. This time period is reknown for slow news days, it is something we all have to grin and bear, but this weekend holds an absolute bounty of events in many sports from Grand Prix to Rugby and so on. Lots to look forward to, lots to enjoy, so if you want you can sweep this lot under the carpet, but it will be back at some point for sure.[/p][/quote]Wiz not sur ewhat your issue with me is - but at least if you are going to constantly attack me actually do it on something I have said . I have never been in favour of this so not sure why you think I was? . All I have ever said is if this is going to be debated can people actually at least debate reality - not made uop versions of what the B league would be - i.e. Squads full of mature international players and multi million pound January signings to secure promotion London Red
  • Score: 1

10:29am Fri 23 May 14

London Red says...

The debate is also pointless on the B-Team point as 75% of the FL have to vote it in
.
Also as it will be involving Conference sides they too would need to be in the vote
.
that would mean 72 of the 96 League and Conference clubs would need to vote it in - can't see many L2 and Conference clubs signing their own death warrent! Don't think it would be popular with lots of L1 teams either as it could see 10 of them relgated to L2 or L3!
.
The FL haven't changed it to 3 up and 3 down in all leagues - so doubt they will vote in 10 new B Teams!
The debate is also pointless on the B-Team point as 75% of the FL have to vote it in . Also as it will be involving Conference sides they too would need to be in the vote . that would mean 72 of the 96 League and Conference clubs would need to vote it in - can't see many L2 and Conference clubs signing their own death warrent! Don't think it would be popular with lots of L1 teams either as it could see 10 of them relgated to L2 or L3! . The FL haven't changed it to 3 up and 3 down in all leagues - so doubt they will vote in 10 new B Teams! London Red
  • Score: 1

10:41am Fri 23 May 14

the wizard says...

London Red wrote:
the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
umpcah wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote: Oh give it a rest.
I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.
I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC
I seem to remember that you were about the only voice here that was all in favour of the suggestion of this B team division, among rafts of objectors. Now many others at higher levels have added their voices also siding with many of the viewpoints here. Admittedly this is old hat, but at least it is letting the majority know the viewpoint of the Trust, which is something we don't hear enough about. This will run and run for a long time yet until Dycke decides along with some committee, no doubt, where to take it from here . Maybe Brainy is right, maybe we are all wrong, but no doubt the future will be changed which is why it is important that all avenues are totally explored first. As you have point out to others on previous issues in years gone by, you don't have to comment on it whether you agree with it or not. This time period is reknown for slow news days, it is something we all have to grin and bear, but this weekend holds an absolute bounty of events in many sports from Grand Prix to Rugby and so on. Lots to look forward to, lots to enjoy, so if you want you can sweep this lot under the carpet, but it will be back at some point for sure.
Wiz not sur ewhat your issue with me is - but at least if you are going to constantly attack me actually do it on something I have said
.
I have never been in favour of this so not sure why you think I was?
.
All I have ever said is if this is going to be debated can people actually at least debate reality - not made uop versions of what the B league would be - i.e. Squads full of mature international players and multi million pound January signings to secure promotion
Wasn't out to attack you, but was saying this isn't going to go away. I thought you were attacking Sam, while all he was doing is reporting something that the Trust has done, and from my view, well done Trust, and why don't we hear more about what they are doing.

Anyway, moving on, Wray had it so right when he said that the sooner we got into the Championship the better as the gulf between the Championship and L1 & L2 would only ever grow. Just how right he was in looking ahead at that time.

And finally, NO, I do not agree with the setting up of this proposed B team league for reasons various. If however another Conference League was set up to encourage more teams to go for elevation to the lower leagues, L1 and L2, and that had some constructive funding then yes I would be in favour of that, and a lower leagues cup of L1, L2 and Conference One and Two should it be set up then yes on the face of it I would be in favour of that too and the L1 and L2 clubs be given the discretion of which Cups they enter into so as to not over stretch there squads.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.[/p][/quote]I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC[/p][/quote]I seem to remember that you were about the only voice here that was all in favour of the suggestion of this B team division, among rafts of objectors. Now many others at higher levels have added their voices also siding with many of the viewpoints here. Admittedly this is old hat, but at least it is letting the majority know the viewpoint of the Trust, which is something we don't hear enough about. This will run and run for a long time yet until Dycke decides along with some committee, no doubt, where to take it from here . Maybe Brainy is right, maybe we are all wrong, but no doubt the future will be changed which is why it is important that all avenues are totally explored first. As you have point out to others on previous issues in years gone by, you don't have to comment on it whether you agree with it or not. This time period is reknown for slow news days, it is something we all have to grin and bear, but this weekend holds an absolute bounty of events in many sports from Grand Prix to Rugby and so on. Lots to look forward to, lots to enjoy, so if you want you can sweep this lot under the carpet, but it will be back at some point for sure.[/p][/quote]Wiz not sur ewhat your issue with me is - but at least if you are going to constantly attack me actually do it on something I have said . I have never been in favour of this so not sure why you think I was? . All I have ever said is if this is going to be debated can people actually at least debate reality - not made uop versions of what the B league would be - i.e. Squads full of mature international players and multi million pound January signings to secure promotion[/p][/quote]Wasn't out to attack you, but was saying this isn't going to go away. I thought you were attacking Sam, while all he was doing is reporting something that the Trust has done, and from my view, well done Trust, and why don't we hear more about what they are doing. Anyway, moving on, Wray had it so right when he said that the sooner we got into the Championship the better as the gulf between the Championship and L1 & L2 would only ever grow. Just how right he was in looking ahead at that time. And finally, NO, I do not agree with the setting up of this proposed B team league for reasons various. If however another Conference League was set up to encourage more teams to go for elevation to the lower leagues, L1 and L2, and that had some constructive funding then yes I would be in favour of that, and a lower leagues cup of L1, L2 and Conference One and Two should it be set up then yes on the face of it I would be in favour of that too and the L1 and L2 clubs be given the discretion of which Cups they enter into so as to not over stretch there squads. the wizard
  • Score: 1

11:02am Fri 23 May 14

Swindon1984 says...

Wilesy wrote:
If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.
Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance.

Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.[/p][/quote]Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to. Swindon1984
  • Score: 2

11:37am Fri 23 May 14

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

How about stopping the Premiership hoarding players and then tossing them away like confetti. Honestly the idiots in the Asylum would do a better job.

Wouldn't put past clubs making wrong decision based on pressure from Premier League and their meager hand me outs. Academy anyone? price to be paid for young talent anyone? Remember Town quite rightly voted against. For what two tenths of didly squat with all the other muppet clubs...

Can't someone set up one of those government petitions, surely they'd get hundreds of thousands of signatures?

If we ever became a feeder club that would be it, we are no longer Swindon Town and there would be no point supporting.

Not going to criticise Sam for reporting this but wouldn't mind an update on the ownership debacle.....
How about stopping the Premiership hoarding players and then tossing them away like confetti. Honestly the idiots in the Asylum would do a better job. Wouldn't put past clubs making wrong decision based on pressure from Premier League and their meager hand me outs. Academy anyone? price to be paid for young talent anyone? Remember Town quite rightly voted against. For what two tenths of didly squat with all the other muppet clubs... Can't someone set up one of those government petitions, surely they'd get hundreds of thousands of signatures? If we ever became a feeder club that would be it, we are no longer Swindon Town and there would be no point supporting. Not going to criticise Sam for reporting this but wouldn't mind an update on the ownership debacle..... dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 1

11:43am Fri 23 May 14

London Red says...

the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
umpcah wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote: Oh give it a rest.
I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.
I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC
I seem to remember that you were about the only voice here that was all in favour of the suggestion of this B team division, among rafts of objectors. Now many others at higher levels have added their voices also siding with many of the viewpoints here. Admittedly this is old hat, but at least it is letting the majority know the viewpoint of the Trust, which is something we don't hear enough about. This will run and run for a long time yet until Dycke decides along with some committee, no doubt, where to take it from here . Maybe Brainy is right, maybe we are all wrong, but no doubt the future will be changed which is why it is important that all avenues are totally explored first. As you have point out to others on previous issues in years gone by, you don't have to comment on it whether you agree with it or not. This time period is reknown for slow news days, it is something we all have to grin and bear, but this weekend holds an absolute bounty of events in many sports from Grand Prix to Rugby and so on. Lots to look forward to, lots to enjoy, so if you want you can sweep this lot under the carpet, but it will be back at some point for sure.
Wiz not sur ewhat your issue with me is - but at least if you are going to constantly attack me actually do it on something I have said . I have never been in favour of this so not sure why you think I was? . All I have ever said is if this is going to be debated can people actually at least debate reality - not made uop versions of what the B league would be - i.e. Squads full of mature international players and multi million pound January signings to secure promotion
Wasn't out to attack you, but was saying this isn't going to go away. I thought you were attacking Sam, while all he was doing is reporting something that the Trust has done, and from my view, well done Trust, and why don't we hear more about what they are doing. Anyway, moving on, Wray had it so right when he said that the sooner we got into the Championship the better as the gulf between the Championship and L1 & L2 would only ever grow. Just how right he was in looking ahead at that time. And finally, NO, I do not agree with the setting up of this proposed B team league for reasons various. If however another Conference League was set up to encourage more teams to go for elevation to the lower leagues, L1 and L2, and that had some constructive funding then yes I would be in favour of that, and a lower leagues cup of L1, L2 and Conference One and Two should it be set up then yes on the face of it I would be in favour of that too and the L1 and L2 clubs be given the discretion of which Cups they enter into so as to not over stretch there squads.
All I was saying is this and his column should have been posted about 2 weeks ago when the idea was published and debates were on here - waiting 2 weeks and then sticking out pretty much the same thing is not news - even in quiet season
.
I know its not going away - but until there are any further developments there is nothing really more to discuss on the B team idea
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I`m too long in the tooth to worry about the possibility of a Bteam league but a lot of younger fans are very concerned and have the right to discuss the subject on these threads.[/p][/quote]I'm with Brainy - as we had articles and comments galore about this weeks ago and now without any new developments happening it is boring . No issue with the Trust being against it and writing to the FA etc - just it should have been reported weeks ago when it first broke just as Sam's column should have been too . Appreciate there is little news but more articles to start debates on the squad and potential signings would be better . Why doesn't Sam write a piece on who is under contract and where he thinks we need strengthening - then who he thinks might be a good target or realistic target? . He could also get views from others like FLIC, Vital STFC and the Washbag etc . The PFA transfer list is growing by the day and you can make numerous teams from it from money no object through to a Scholars XI - plenty to Spark debate . Or even do a L1 round up showing the ins and outs of our rivals - like Alan Smith signs on at Notts as player Coach or Walsall Captain Andy Butler rejects offer and is to leave - an exceptional player at this level who is would love here at STFC[/p][/quote]I seem to remember that you were about the only voice here that was all in favour of the suggestion of this B team division, among rafts of objectors. Now many others at higher levels have added their voices also siding with many of the viewpoints here. Admittedly this is old hat, but at least it is letting the majority know the viewpoint of the Trust, which is something we don't hear enough about. This will run and run for a long time yet until Dycke decides along with some committee, no doubt, where to take it from here . Maybe Brainy is right, maybe we are all wrong, but no doubt the future will be changed which is why it is important that all avenues are totally explored first. As you have point out to others on previous issues in years gone by, you don't have to comment on it whether you agree with it or not. This time period is reknown for slow news days, it is something we all have to grin and bear, but this weekend holds an absolute bounty of events in many sports from Grand Prix to Rugby and so on. Lots to look forward to, lots to enjoy, so if you want you can sweep this lot under the carpet, but it will be back at some point for sure.[/p][/quote]Wiz not sur ewhat your issue with me is - but at least if you are going to constantly attack me actually do it on something I have said . I have never been in favour of this so not sure why you think I was? . All I have ever said is if this is going to be debated can people actually at least debate reality - not made uop versions of what the B league would be - i.e. Squads full of mature international players and multi million pound January signings to secure promotion[/p][/quote]Wasn't out to attack you, but was saying this isn't going to go away. I thought you were attacking Sam, while all he was doing is reporting something that the Trust has done, and from my view, well done Trust, and why don't we hear more about what they are doing. Anyway, moving on, Wray had it so right when he said that the sooner we got into the Championship the better as the gulf between the Championship and L1 & L2 would only ever grow. Just how right he was in looking ahead at that time. And finally, NO, I do not agree with the setting up of this proposed B team league for reasons various. If however another Conference League was set up to encourage more teams to go for elevation to the lower leagues, L1 and L2, and that had some constructive funding then yes I would be in favour of that, and a lower leagues cup of L1, L2 and Conference One and Two should it be set up then yes on the face of it I would be in favour of that too and the L1 and L2 clubs be given the discretion of which Cups they enter into so as to not over stretch there squads.[/p][/quote]All I was saying is this and his column should have been posted about 2 weeks ago when the idea was published and debates were on here - waiting 2 weeks and then sticking out pretty much the same thing is not news - even in quiet season . I know its not going away - but until there are any further developments there is nothing really more to discuss on the B team idea London Red
  • Score: 0

11:50am Fri 23 May 14

the wizard says...

Deamo, star post above, and also 1984 ref, the parachute payments.

We don't need a B league, we need an overhaul of the game. I've often pondered the thought of splitting the Champ, L1 and L2, into 4 slightly smaller divisions so we play say 38 instead of 46 games a season to allow for postponed games in harsh weather and it would also open up things to avoid fixture congestion etc due to cup runs and re arranged games. The down side would be loss of revenue, but the up side would be being able to field a squad carrying less fatigued and injured players. Perhaps the revenue loss would not be as significant as it may first appear as many would make a bigger effort to attend , and the reduction of overheads associated with match days. Some Conference clubs may well benefit from promotion to make up a few places. Teams would have better player availability. Its worthy of thought anyway.
Deamo, star post above, and also 1984 ref, the parachute payments. We don't need a B league, we need an overhaul of the game. I've often pondered the thought of splitting the Champ, L1 and L2, into 4 slightly smaller divisions so we play say 38 instead of 46 games a season to allow for postponed games in harsh weather and it would also open up things to avoid fixture congestion etc due to cup runs and re arranged games. The down side would be loss of revenue, but the up side would be being able to field a squad carrying less fatigued and injured players. Perhaps the revenue loss would not be as significant as it may first appear as many would make a bigger effort to attend , and the reduction of overheads associated with match days. Some Conference clubs may well benefit from promotion to make up a few places. Teams would have better player availability. Its worthy of thought anyway. the wizard
  • Score: 4

12:01pm Fri 23 May 14

London Red says...

Swindon1984 wrote:
Wilesy wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.
Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.
If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2?
.
The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????)
.
Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+
.
So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently)
.
If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts?
.
Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season)
.
Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit
.
£650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides!
.
Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years!
[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.[/p][/quote]Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.[/p][/quote]If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2? . The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????) . Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+ . So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently) . If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts? . Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season) . Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit . £650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides! . Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years! London Red
  • Score: 2

12:02pm Fri 23 May 14

STFConyourpitch says...

I agree it's a terrible idea. I rather see England national team fail than see my local club die.
I agree it's a terrible idea. I rather see England national team fail than see my local club die. STFConyourpitch
  • Score: 11

12:17pm Fri 23 May 14

Next Tuesday says...

STFConyourpitch wrote:
I agree it's a terrible idea. I rather see England national team fail than see my local club die.
Sorry but that comment is ridiculous.

Who can forget the national fervour when England won the Tournoi de France in 1997? Nothing Swindon Town have or could achieve could ever compete with that.

Some people need to get with reality. If the B league helps out with the England team, which it undoubtedly would, then I for one am all in favour. 17 years without a trophy is far too long.
[quote][p][bold]STFConyourpitch[/bold] wrote: I agree it's a terrible idea. I rather see England national team fail than see my local club die.[/p][/quote]Sorry but that comment is ridiculous. Who can forget the national fervour when England won the Tournoi de France in 1997? Nothing Swindon Town have or could achieve could ever compete with that. Some people need to get with reality. If the B league helps out with the England team, which it undoubtedly would, then I for one am all in favour. 17 years without a trophy is far too long. Next Tuesday
  • Score: -15

12:21pm Fri 23 May 14

the wizard says...

London Red wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Wilesy wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.
Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.
If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2?
.
The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????)
.
Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+
.
So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently)
.
If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts?
.
Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season)
.
Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit
.
£650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides!
.
Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years!
That would really even things out to benefit all, which can only be a good thing.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.[/p][/quote]Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.[/p][/quote]If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2? . The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????) . Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+ . So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently) . If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts? . Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season) . Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit . £650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides! . Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years![/p][/quote]That would really even things out to benefit all, which can only be a good thing. the wizard
  • Score: 1

12:31pm Fri 23 May 14

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I wish you would give everyone else a rest !
You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.
[quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I wish you would give everyone else a rest ! You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Fri 23 May 14

Wilesy says...

the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Wilesy wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.
Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.
If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2?
.
The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????)
.
Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+
.
So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently)
.
If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts?
.
Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season)
.
Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit
.
£650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides!
.
Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years!
That would really even things out to benefit all, which can only be a good thing.
A proper financial fair play system may solve the problem with a capped salary % of turnover, as well as a capped total salary of say £50m.

You could have the same caps at every level so it doesn't matter if a club goes up or down.

Yes say a £50million cap would be unnecessary for Man Utd if they were to drop down to League 1, but if a club wants to (and can) spend that much then that's up to them, and it would be out of their own pocket not given parachute payments to all but guarantee promotion. But it would be £50million for every team. Different caps for different leagues wouldn't solve the problem.

It is a fairly rare event though for big clubs like Wolves, Man City or Leeds to drop down in consecutive seasons to league 1 or below, resulting in Premiership wages in League 1. Managing contracts better has to be a priority though I agree, so should that happen there should be a termination clause. Anyone joining a Prem team would surely not want to play in League 1 so shouldn't be worried by that.

In general I wouldn't think League 1 / 2 wages are significantly different so no great issue once you get below the Championship? It is rare for us to offer more than a 2 year contract in any case.

As LR notes, the B league will never get voted in, other than the big clubs and Mr Dyke I've yet to see one really positive view on it, unless some of the £millions trickle down into the lower leagues.....
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.[/p][/quote]Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.[/p][/quote]If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2? . The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????) . Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+ . So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently) . If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts? . Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season) . Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit . £650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides! . Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years![/p][/quote]That would really even things out to benefit all, which can only be a good thing.[/p][/quote]A proper financial fair play system may solve the problem with a capped salary % of turnover, as well as a capped total salary of say £50m. You could have the same caps at every level so it doesn't matter if a club goes up or down. Yes say a £50million cap would be unnecessary for Man Utd if they were to drop down to League 1, but if a club wants to (and can) spend that much then that's up to them, and it would be out of their own pocket not given parachute payments to all but guarantee promotion. But it would be £50million for every team. Different caps for different leagues wouldn't solve the problem. It is a fairly rare event though for big clubs like Wolves, Man City or Leeds to drop down in consecutive seasons to league 1 or below, resulting in Premiership wages in League 1. Managing contracts better has to be a priority though I agree, so should that happen there should be a termination clause. Anyone joining a Prem team would surely not want to play in League 1 so shouldn't be worried by that. In general I wouldn't think League 1 / 2 wages are significantly different so no great issue once you get below the Championship? It is rare for us to offer more than a 2 year contract in any case. As LR notes, the B league will never get voted in, other than the big clubs and Mr Dyke I've yet to see one really positive view on it, unless some of the £millions trickle down into the lower leagues..... Wilesy
  • Score: 1

1:41pm Fri 23 May 14

London Red says...

the wizard wrote:
Deamo, star post above, and also 1984 ref, the parachute payments. We don't need a B league, we need an overhaul of the game. I've often pondered the thought of splitting the Champ, L1 and L2, into 4 slightly smaller divisions so we play say 38 instead of 46 games a season to allow for postponed games in harsh weather and it would also open up things to avoid fixture congestion etc due to cup runs and re arranged games. The down side would be loss of revenue, but the up side would be being able to field a squad carrying less fatigued and injured players. Perhaps the revenue loss would not be as significant as it may first appear as many would make a bigger effort to attend , and the reduction of overheads associated with match days. Some Conference clubs may well benefit from promotion to make up a few places. Teams would have better player availability. Its worthy of thought anyway.
Don't think that would work
.
Championship would probably keep all the money - if not most (20/24th) - with the L1 and L2 pots now getting split between 60 not 48
.
Also clubs will not want to vote themsleves to be relegated - Blackpool, Birmingham, Millwall and CHarlotn would not have been up for it
.
Neither would Notts Co, Gills, Crewe, Northampton, Wycombe or Wimbledon!
.
I think the only way a reshuffle could work is to merge L1 and L2 and split it into L1 North and L1 South
.
Money can stay the same with L1 and L2 pot still split between 48
.
Revenues might also go up as there will be a lot more local derbies - and costs would fall dramatically as a lot less travel and probably no overnight stays
.
We would never have to go to Carlisle again!
.
Conference clubs will probably be in favour of it as it should saee teams coming up double to 4 from the current 2
.
Also the Confernece Teams would probably be pro it as if they go up they only have more more league to go up to the Championship!
.
TV might be more interested too - as the local derbies should provde some decent games
.
For promotions it could either see an extra one go up with 2 from each (both automatic or 1 via a PO) - or keep it as 3 with Champions of the North and South going up and then a PO f0r the final spots made up of the 2 divisions next 4-6 teams
.
This could make it more exciting as new teams will be playing each other and could be restructured to favour 2nd
.
3rd South could Travel to 2nd North, 3rd North travelling to 2nd South with the winners in the final - one less game so favouring the higher palced team
.
Or extend it and have 5th South plays 4th North away - winner then travels 3rd South with the winner travelling to 2nd North - with the winner in the Final (opposite North and South in other side)
.
2nd then only have 2 games not 3 and 5th have 4 not 3 making it more in favour of the higher placed team
.
Based on 2014/15 L1 and L2 then L1 South would probably look like the folowing:
.
Bristol C
Burton
Cambridge
Cheltenham
Colchester
Coventry
Crawley
D&R
Exeter
Gills
Luton
MK
Newport
Northampton
Orient/Shrewsbury
Oxford
Plymouth
Pompy
Posh
Southend
Swindon
Walsall
Wimbledon
Wycombe
.
I certainly would much prefer to see us in that league than the 2014/15 L1!
.
I would much prefer to be playing Pox, Pompey, Luton, D&R and Wimbledon than Rochdale, Scunny, Bradford or Oldham
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Deamo, star post above, and also 1984 ref, the parachute payments. We don't need a B league, we need an overhaul of the game. I've often pondered the thought of splitting the Champ, L1 and L2, into 4 slightly smaller divisions so we play say 38 instead of 46 games a season to allow for postponed games in harsh weather and it would also open up things to avoid fixture congestion etc due to cup runs and re arranged games. The down side would be loss of revenue, but the up side would be being able to field a squad carrying less fatigued and injured players. Perhaps the revenue loss would not be as significant as it may first appear as many would make a bigger effort to attend , and the reduction of overheads associated with match days. Some Conference clubs may well benefit from promotion to make up a few places. Teams would have better player availability. Its worthy of thought anyway.[/p][/quote]Don't think that would work . Championship would probably keep all the money - if not most (20/24th) - with the L1 and L2 pots now getting split between 60 not 48 . Also clubs will not want to vote themsleves to be relegated - Blackpool, Birmingham, Millwall and CHarlotn would not have been up for it . Neither would Notts Co, Gills, Crewe, Northampton, Wycombe or Wimbledon! . I think the only way a reshuffle could work is to merge L1 and L2 and split it into L1 North and L1 South . Money can stay the same with L1 and L2 pot still split between 48 . Revenues might also go up as there will be a lot more local derbies - and costs would fall dramatically as a lot less travel and probably no overnight stays . We would never have to go to Carlisle again! . Conference clubs will probably be in favour of it as it should saee teams coming up double to 4 from the current 2 . Also the Confernece Teams would probably be pro it as if they go up they only have more more league to go up to the Championship! . TV might be more interested too - as the local derbies should provde some decent games . For promotions it could either see an extra one go up with 2 from each (both automatic or 1 via a PO) - or keep it as 3 with Champions of the North and South going up and then a PO f0r the final spots made up of the 2 divisions next 4-6 teams . This could make it more exciting as new teams will be playing each other and could be restructured to favour 2nd . 3rd South could Travel to 2nd North, 3rd North travelling to 2nd South with the winners in the final - one less game so favouring the higher palced team . Or extend it and have 5th South plays 4th North away - winner then travels 3rd South with the winner travelling to 2nd North - with the winner in the Final (opposite North and South in other side) . 2nd then only have 2 games not 3 and 5th have 4 not 3 making it more in favour of the higher placed team . Based on 2014/15 L1 and L2 then L1 South would probably look like the folowing: . Bristol C Burton Cambridge Cheltenham Colchester Coventry Crawley D&R Exeter Gills Luton MK Newport Northampton Orient/Shrewsbury Oxford Plymouth Pompy Posh Southend Swindon Walsall Wimbledon Wycombe . I certainly would much prefer to see us in that league than the 2014/15 L1! . I would much prefer to be playing Pox, Pompey, Luton, D&R and Wimbledon than Rochdale, Scunny, Bradford or Oldham London Red
  • Score: 1

1:55pm Fri 23 May 14

London Red says...

Wilesy wrote:
the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Wilesy wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.
Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.
If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2? . The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????) . Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+ . So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently) . If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts? . Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season) . Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit . £650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides! . Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years!
That would really even things out to benefit all, which can only be a good thing.
A proper financial fair play system may solve the problem with a capped salary % of turnover, as well as a capped total salary of say £50m. You could have the same caps at every level so it doesn't matter if a club goes up or down. Yes say a £50million cap would be unnecessary for Man Utd if they were to drop down to League 1, but if a club wants to (and can) spend that much then that's up to them, and it would be out of their own pocket not given parachute payments to all but guarantee promotion. But it would be £50million for every team. Different caps for different leagues wouldn't solve the problem. It is a fairly rare event though for big clubs like Wolves, Man City or Leeds to drop down in consecutive seasons to league 1 or below, resulting in Premiership wages in League 1. Managing contracts better has to be a priority though I agree, so should that happen there should be a termination clause. Anyone joining a Prem team would surely not want to play in League 1 so shouldn't be worried by that. In general I wouldn't think League 1 / 2 wages are significantly different so no great issue once you get below the Championship? It is rare for us to offer more than a 2 year contract in any case. As LR notes, the B league will never get voted in, other than the big clubs and Mr Dyke I've yet to see one really positive view on it, unless some of the £millions trickle down into the lower leagues.....
Think the overall cap and % of revenue cap (though that would need to be tightened up to stop Man City style deals inflating it) is a good idea
.
Also removes the stupid can make £100m loss to be "fair" and "secure"
.
You say it doesn't happen very often but we have been seeing more and more big clubs fall into L1 - Norwich, Leeds, Southampton, Forest, Leicester and Wolves havew all been down recently
.
Birmingham onlyt stayed out by a 93rd minute equaliser!
.
They are not secure next year either ar eBlackpool after getting shot of 16 players - and still have the potential to lose another 8!
.
Also is the L1 and L2 wages really that close?
.
We have halved our budget and Brentford revealed that they were only 4th biggest this season with a top wage of £4.5k
.
Doubt a single L2 team has that much being paid.
.
Remember our budget of about £3m saw us totally dominate L2 - as most are below our current slashed one!
.
I know its from 2010 but if you google it there was a surveyt dojne which said average wage was £30k Premiership, £4,1k Championship, £1.4k L1 and £750 L2 - showing a gulf between each division
.
L1 being double L2 and Championship 4 times the size of L1!
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.[/p][/quote]Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.[/p][/quote]If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2? . The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????) . Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+ . So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently) . If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts? . Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season) . Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit . £650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides! . Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years![/p][/quote]That would really even things out to benefit all, which can only be a good thing.[/p][/quote]A proper financial fair play system may solve the problem with a capped salary % of turnover, as well as a capped total salary of say £50m. You could have the same caps at every level so it doesn't matter if a club goes up or down. Yes say a £50million cap would be unnecessary for Man Utd if they were to drop down to League 1, but if a club wants to (and can) spend that much then that's up to them, and it would be out of their own pocket not given parachute payments to all but guarantee promotion. But it would be £50million for every team. Different caps for different leagues wouldn't solve the problem. It is a fairly rare event though for big clubs like Wolves, Man City or Leeds to drop down in consecutive seasons to league 1 or below, resulting in Premiership wages in League 1. Managing contracts better has to be a priority though I agree, so should that happen there should be a termination clause. Anyone joining a Prem team would surely not want to play in League 1 so shouldn't be worried by that. In general I wouldn't think League 1 / 2 wages are significantly different so no great issue once you get below the Championship? It is rare for us to offer more than a 2 year contract in any case. As LR notes, the B league will never get voted in, other than the big clubs and Mr Dyke I've yet to see one really positive view on it, unless some of the £millions trickle down into the lower leagues.....[/p][/quote]Think the overall cap and % of revenue cap (though that would need to be tightened up to stop Man City style deals inflating it) is a good idea . Also removes the stupid can make £100m loss to be "fair" and "secure" . You say it doesn't happen very often but we have been seeing more and more big clubs fall into L1 - Norwich, Leeds, Southampton, Forest, Leicester and Wolves havew all been down recently . Birmingham onlyt stayed out by a 93rd minute equaliser! . They are not secure next year either ar eBlackpool after getting shot of 16 players - and still have the potential to lose another 8! . Also is the L1 and L2 wages really that close? . We have halved our budget and Brentford revealed that they were only 4th biggest this season with a top wage of £4.5k . Doubt a single L2 team has that much being paid. . Remember our budget of about £3m saw us totally dominate L2 - as most are below our current slashed one! . I know its from 2010 but if you google it there was a surveyt dojne which said average wage was £30k Premiership, £4,1k Championship, £1.4k L1 and £750 L2 - showing a gulf between each division . L1 being double L2 and Championship 4 times the size of L1! London Red
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Fri 23 May 14

LeGod says...

changing subject I see Eastleigh having signed C*nstable from the Scum they have now signed Midson as well and look like they are really going for it.
Their financial backers I think they are a property company in Witney have stated they want to get in the football league as soon as they can and after being promoted to the conference they look as though they are going to have a serious attempt at it and apparently more players are to follow.
They have already improved the ground and increased capacity to 7500 plus more plans in the pipeline.
Fair play to them they are only about eight miles away from where I live and they have been desperate for a while to get in the conference.
changing subject I see Eastleigh having signed C*nstable from the Scum they have now signed Midson as well and look like they are really going for it. Their financial backers I think they are a property company in Witney have stated they want to get in the football league as soon as they can and after being promoted to the conference they look as though they are going to have a serious attempt at it and apparently more players are to follow. They have already improved the ground and increased capacity to 7500 plus more plans in the pipeline. Fair play to them they are only about eight miles away from where I live and they have been desperate for a while to get in the conference. LeGod
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Fri 23 May 14

the wizard says...

London Red wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Deamo, star post above, and also 1984 ref, the parachute payments. We don't need a B league, we need an overhaul of the game. I've often pondered the thought of splitting the Champ, L1 and L2, into 4 slightly smaller divisions so we play say 38 instead of 46 games a season to allow for postponed games in harsh weather and it would also open up things to avoid fixture congestion etc due to cup runs and re arranged games. The down side would be loss of revenue, but the up side would be being able to field a squad carrying less fatigued and injured players. Perhaps the revenue loss would not be as significant as it may first appear as many would make a bigger effort to attend , and the reduction of overheads associated with match days. Some Conference clubs may well benefit from promotion to make up a few places. Teams would have better player availability. Its worthy of thought anyway.
Don't think that would work
.
Championship would probably keep all the money - if not most (20/24th) - with the L1 and L2 pots now getting split between 60 not 48
.
Also clubs will not want to vote themsleves to be relegated - Blackpool, Birmingham, Millwall and CHarlotn would not have been up for it
.
Neither would Notts Co, Gills, Crewe, Northampton, Wycombe or Wimbledon!
.
I think the only way a reshuffle could work is to merge L1 and L2 and split it into L1 North and L1 South
.
Money can stay the same with L1 and L2 pot still split between 48
.
Revenues might also go up as there will be a lot more local derbies - and costs would fall dramatically as a lot less travel and probably no overnight stays
.
We would never have to go to Carlisle again!
.
Conference clubs will probably be in favour of it as it should saee teams coming up double to 4 from the current 2
.
Also the Confernece Teams would probably be pro it as if they go up they only have more more league to go up to the Championship!
.
TV might be more interested too - as the local derbies should provde some decent games
.
For promotions it could either see an extra one go up with 2 from each (both automatic or 1 via a PO) - or keep it as 3 with Champions of the North and South going up and then a PO f0r the final spots made up of the 2 divisions next 4-6 teams
.
This could make it more exciting as new teams will be playing each other and could be restructured to favour 2nd
.
3rd South could Travel to 2nd North, 3rd North travelling to 2nd South with the winners in the final - one less game so favouring the higher palced team
.
Or extend it and have 5th South plays 4th North away - winner then travels 3rd South with the winner travelling to 2nd North - with the winner in the Final (opposite North and South in other side)
.
2nd then only have 2 games not 3 and 5th have 4 not 3 making it more in favour of the higher placed team
.
Based on 2014/15 L1 and L2 then L1 South would probably look like the folowing:
.
Bristol C
Burton
Cambridge
Cheltenham
Colchester
Coventry
Crawley
D&R
Exeter
Gills
Luton
MK
Newport
Northampton
Orient/Shrewsbury
Oxford
Plymouth
Pompy
Posh
Southend
Swindon
Walsall
Wimbledon
Wycombe
.
I certainly would much prefer to see us in that league than the 2014/15 L1!
.
I would much prefer to be playing Pox, Pompey, Luton, D&R and Wimbledon than Rochdale, Scunny, Bradford or Oldham
As I said, its worth thinking about and debating as you have shown. There are ways to improve things and progress things in a more positive way. Many may argue against the North/South, but as you point out gate revenues would improve, greater interest would be generated, less traveling costs by the clubs probably doing away with the need for overnight hotels etc. I'm not a fan of play offs but again its a money generator if administered to benefit the clubs as opposed to just going into a big pot. The lower leagues need looking after and should be revered as many feel they are a big part of our national picture. Limiting the number of overseas players per club is one way of furthering our national game, the footballing authorities need to look at what they want, a Premiership or International side borne out of players who have progressed either within Prem clubs or from the bigger picture of our national set up. It is more than complicated, and there is nor will be an easy straight forward decision, but at some point we have to improve if the populations level of expectation is to be realized, and it will not happen overnight. I would like to see more involvement from the Conference and two tiers there, Conference L1 and L2 incorporated more so in the picture, and as I mentioned before a Cup competition for L1, L2 and the two conference divisions and make them so they are discretionary for clubs to enter. Its another "Wembley" day for somebody and it should be promoted as a good thing, with some decent rewards for the clubs involved to make that trip worthwhile. Of course this is all speculation, but more involvement from clubs further down the pyramid and cash generators for them should be encouraged At the end of the day however well meaning we all are, a bunch of guys sat behind keyboards around the country will not change things, but at least we have desire and the passion, and importantly the will, to keep small clubs such as ours and many others fit, alive and to a point ambitious, to raise the standards and futures to the medium and longer term, and it appears to most of us, that we have a better perspective and ideas than people sat on committees at national level, however well meaning they probably are.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Deamo, star post above, and also 1984 ref, the parachute payments. We don't need a B league, we need an overhaul of the game. I've often pondered the thought of splitting the Champ, L1 and L2, into 4 slightly smaller divisions so we play say 38 instead of 46 games a season to allow for postponed games in harsh weather and it would also open up things to avoid fixture congestion etc due to cup runs and re arranged games. The down side would be loss of revenue, but the up side would be being able to field a squad carrying less fatigued and injured players. Perhaps the revenue loss would not be as significant as it may first appear as many would make a bigger effort to attend , and the reduction of overheads associated with match days. Some Conference clubs may well benefit from promotion to make up a few places. Teams would have better player availability. Its worthy of thought anyway.[/p][/quote]Don't think that would work . Championship would probably keep all the money - if not most (20/24th) - with the L1 and L2 pots now getting split between 60 not 48 . Also clubs will not want to vote themsleves to be relegated - Blackpool, Birmingham, Millwall and CHarlotn would not have been up for it . Neither would Notts Co, Gills, Crewe, Northampton, Wycombe or Wimbledon! . I think the only way a reshuffle could work is to merge L1 and L2 and split it into L1 North and L1 South . Money can stay the same with L1 and L2 pot still split between 48 . Revenues might also go up as there will be a lot more local derbies - and costs would fall dramatically as a lot less travel and probably no overnight stays . We would never have to go to Carlisle again! . Conference clubs will probably be in favour of it as it should saee teams coming up double to 4 from the current 2 . Also the Confernece Teams would probably be pro it as if they go up they only have more more league to go up to the Championship! . TV might be more interested too - as the local derbies should provde some decent games . For promotions it could either see an extra one go up with 2 from each (both automatic or 1 via a PO) - or keep it as 3 with Champions of the North and South going up and then a PO f0r the final spots made up of the 2 divisions next 4-6 teams . This could make it more exciting as new teams will be playing each other and could be restructured to favour 2nd . 3rd South could Travel to 2nd North, 3rd North travelling to 2nd South with the winners in the final - one less game so favouring the higher palced team . Or extend it and have 5th South plays 4th North away - winner then travels 3rd South with the winner travelling to 2nd North - with the winner in the Final (opposite North and South in other side) . 2nd then only have 2 games not 3 and 5th have 4 not 3 making it more in favour of the higher placed team . Based on 2014/15 L1 and L2 then L1 South would probably look like the folowing: . Bristol C Burton Cambridge Cheltenham Colchester Coventry Crawley D&R Exeter Gills Luton MK Newport Northampton Orient/Shrewsbury Oxford Plymouth Pompy Posh Southend Swindon Walsall Wimbledon Wycombe . I certainly would much prefer to see us in that league than the 2014/15 L1! . I would much prefer to be playing Pox, Pompey, Luton, D&R and Wimbledon than Rochdale, Scunny, Bradford or Oldham[/p][/quote]As I said, its worth thinking about and debating as you have shown. There are ways to improve things and progress things in a more positive way. Many may argue against the North/South, but as you point out gate revenues would improve, greater interest would be generated, less traveling costs by the clubs probably doing away with the need for overnight hotels etc. I'm not a fan of play offs but again its a money generator if administered to benefit the clubs as opposed to just going into a big pot. The lower leagues need looking after and should be revered as many feel they are a big part of our national picture. Limiting the number of overseas players per club is one way of furthering our national game, the footballing authorities need to look at what they want, a Premiership or International side borne out of players who have progressed either within Prem clubs or from the bigger picture of our national set up. It is more than complicated, and there is nor will be an easy straight forward decision, but at some point we have to improve if the populations level of expectation is to be realized, and it will not happen overnight. I would like to see more involvement from the Conference and two tiers there, Conference L1 and L2 incorporated more so in the picture, and as I mentioned before a Cup competition for L1, L2 and the two conference divisions and make them so they are discretionary for clubs to enter. Its another "Wembley" day for somebody and it should be promoted as a good thing, with some decent rewards for the clubs involved to make that trip worthwhile. Of course this is all speculation, but more involvement from clubs further down the pyramid and cash generators for them should be encouraged At the end of the day however well meaning we all are, a bunch of guys sat behind keyboards around the country will not change things, but at least we have desire and the passion, and importantly the will, to keep small clubs such as ours and many others fit, alive and to a point ambitious, to raise the standards and futures to the medium and longer term, and it appears to most of us, that we have a better perspective and ideas than people sat on committees at national level, however well meaning they probably are. the wizard
  • Score: 1

5:53pm Fri 23 May 14

Brainy_G93 says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I wish you would give everyone else a rest !
You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.
Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I wish you would give everyone else a rest ! You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.[/p][/quote]Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time. Brainy_G93
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Fri 23 May 14

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

Next Tuesday wrote:
STFConyourpitch wrote:
I agree it's a terrible idea. I rather see England national team fail than see my local club die.
Sorry but that comment is ridiculous.

Who can forget the national fervour when England won the Tournoi de France in 1997? Nothing Swindon Town have or could achieve could ever compete with that.

Some people need to get with reality. If the B league helps out with the England team, which it undoubtedly would, then I for one am all in favour. 17 years without a trophy is far too long.
Is it ?
Don't give two monkeys about the Premiership and can't get excited watching England.

Swindon for me loud and proud.
[quote][p][bold]Next Tuesday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]STFConyourpitch[/bold] wrote: I agree it's a terrible idea. I rather see England national team fail than see my local club die.[/p][/quote]Sorry but that comment is ridiculous. Who can forget the national fervour when England won the Tournoi de France in 1997? Nothing Swindon Town have or could achieve could ever compete with that. Some people need to get with reality. If the B league helps out with the England team, which it undoubtedly would, then I for one am all in favour. 17 years without a trophy is far too long.[/p][/quote]Is it ? Don't give two monkeys about the Premiership and can't get excited watching England. Swindon for me loud and proud. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 3

10:15pm Fri 23 May 14

Wilesy says...

London Red wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Wilesy wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.
Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.
If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2? . The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????) . Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+ . So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently) . If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts? . Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season) . Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit . £650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides! . Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years!
That would really even things out to benefit all, which can only be a good thing.
A proper financial fair play system may solve the problem with a capped salary % of turnover, as well as a capped total salary of say £50m. You could have the same caps at every level so it doesn't matter if a club goes up or down. Yes say a £50million cap would be unnecessary for Man Utd if they were to drop down to League 1, but if a club wants to (and can) spend that much then that's up to them, and it would be out of their own pocket not given parachute payments to all but guarantee promotion. But it would be £50million for every team. Different caps for different leagues wouldn't solve the problem. It is a fairly rare event though for big clubs like Wolves, Man City or Leeds to drop down in consecutive seasons to league 1 or below, resulting in Premiership wages in League 1. Managing contracts better has to be a priority though I agree, so should that happen there should be a termination clause. Anyone joining a Prem team would surely not want to play in League 1 so shouldn't be worried by that. In general I wouldn't think League 1 / 2 wages are significantly different so no great issue once you get below the Championship? It is rare for us to offer more than a 2 year contract in any case. As LR notes, the B league will never get voted in, other than the big clubs and Mr Dyke I've yet to see one really positive view on it, unless some of the £millions trickle down into the lower leagues.....
Think the overall cap and % of revenue cap (though that would need to be tightened up to stop Man City style deals inflating it) is a good idea
.
Also removes the stupid can make £100m loss to be "fair" and "secure"
.
You say it doesn't happen very often but we have been seeing more and more big clubs fall into L1 - Norwich, Leeds, Southampton, Forest, Leicester and Wolves havew all been down recently
.
Birmingham onlyt stayed out by a 93rd minute equaliser!
.
They are not secure next year either ar eBlackpool after getting shot of 16 players - and still have the potential to lose another 8!
.
Also is the L1 and L2 wages really that close?
.
We have halved our budget and Brentford revealed that they were only 4th biggest this season with a top wage of £4.5k
.
Doubt a single L2 team has that much being paid.
.
Remember our budget of about £3m saw us totally dominate L2 - as most are below our current slashed one!
.
I know its from 2010 but if you google it there was a surveyt dojne which said average wage was £30k Premiership, £4,1k Championship, £1.4k L1 and £750 L2 - showing a gulf between each division
.
L1 being double L2 and Championship 4 times the size of L1!
LR good stats, but I don't think the L1 to L2 stat is that significant, despite being 100% higher in L1. Prem to L1 is the point I was making really, £30k players dropping to a £1.4k league is where you get huge problems, while £1.4k dropping to a £750 league is not such an issue and you can always sell or lose a player or two.

These parachute payments also make a mockery of who is a big club - as Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham are now the biggest 3 clubs in the Championship with their £100 million windfalls, despite more history and bigger fan base of other clubs in the division, for example 'the mighty' Leeds how do they begin to compete with those three clubs?....
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: If the main gripe with this league is that smaller teams are unlikely to get to the Championship or Premiership, well it's about 1% of the problem when Cardiff get £100 million for getting relegated from the Premiership. We saw it with Wolves breezing the division this year thanks to their £16 million parachute payment. I can't see the gulf ever getting bridged unless their are some bold decisions 'in the interests of football' made at the top, which will never happen while all decisions are made 'in the interests of the top clubs'. A few big teams throwing their youngsters into a B League isn't really the death knell for local clubs, the Premiership and the TV companies have achieved that already.[/p][/quote]Completely agree, and similar to what I'd posted the other day about getting rid of parachute payments (which encourage clubs to overspend in order to gain promotion, reward the failure of relegation and give an unfair advantage as following relegation they're in a better position to challenge again) and redistribute the wealth fairly amongst the 92 clubs to give everyone a sporting chance. Not a black and white issue as if we were a wealthy club I doubt we'd be in favour of sharing TV money and parachute payments with teams below us, but with 92 professional league clubs contributing to the English game, you would think there could be a way to share the riches we all contribute to.[/p][/quote]If Parachute payments are so vital - then why do similar Payments not exist in the Championship, L1 and L2? . The idea is clubs go up and see vastly increased wage bills in order to compete with exiusting teams - thus if relegated they could go under through no longer having the revenue to support the new wages - thus they are aided to ease those off the Premiership contracts over the next 4 season (why are they signing people on 5 year deals anyway????) . Yet surely the same scenario is in each league (OK at smaller amounts) - If we were to go up we would not survive on £2m wages (see Yeovil or Donny) when the rest of the league is on £10m+ . So we would probably need to up ours to say £7m (£5m increase as revenue stated by Posh recently) . If we come straight back down - we would be in a Post Black scenario again where wages outsrip revenue - so why do we not get a Parachute to aided us while we ease those off the Championship contracts? . Personally I think all clubs should be forced to manage their own house and build in relegation clauses to cut wages down to a more manageable level - also they should hold some of the revenue earned in reserve to compensate a loss the following year (so we may only increase it by £3m - meaning we have £2m to cover if relegated the following season) . Then the current Parachute payments which are no longer getting paid out (£45m) a season can be evenly distributed amongst the non-Premiership relgated league sides (£650k for the 69 teams) to even up the playing field a bit . £650k is not much to a championship side but is a lot to L1 and L2 sides! . Though Championship sides should need the boost as their main rivals will not be having £48m extra over the next 4 years![/p][/quote]That would really even things out to benefit all, which can only be a good thing.[/p][/quote]A proper financial fair play system may solve the problem with a capped salary % of turnover, as well as a capped total salary of say £50m. You could have the same caps at every level so it doesn't matter if a club goes up or down. Yes say a £50million cap would be unnecessary for Man Utd if they were to drop down to League 1, but if a club wants to (and can) spend that much then that's up to them, and it would be out of their own pocket not given parachute payments to all but guarantee promotion. But it would be £50million for every team. Different caps for different leagues wouldn't solve the problem. It is a fairly rare event though for big clubs like Wolves, Man City or Leeds to drop down in consecutive seasons to league 1 or below, resulting in Premiership wages in League 1. Managing contracts better has to be a priority though I agree, so should that happen there should be a termination clause. Anyone joining a Prem team would surely not want to play in League 1 so shouldn't be worried by that. In general I wouldn't think League 1 / 2 wages are significantly different so no great issue once you get below the Championship? It is rare for us to offer more than a 2 year contract in any case. As LR notes, the B league will never get voted in, other than the big clubs and Mr Dyke I've yet to see one really positive view on it, unless some of the £millions trickle down into the lower leagues.....[/p][/quote]Think the overall cap and % of revenue cap (though that would need to be tightened up to stop Man City style deals inflating it) is a good idea . Also removes the stupid can make £100m loss to be "fair" and "secure" . You say it doesn't happen very often but we have been seeing more and more big clubs fall into L1 - Norwich, Leeds, Southampton, Forest, Leicester and Wolves havew all been down recently . Birmingham onlyt stayed out by a 93rd minute equaliser! . They are not secure next year either ar eBlackpool after getting shot of 16 players - and still have the potential to lose another 8! . Also is the L1 and L2 wages really that close? . We have halved our budget and Brentford revealed that they were only 4th biggest this season with a top wage of £4.5k . Doubt a single L2 team has that much being paid. . Remember our budget of about £3m saw us totally dominate L2 - as most are below our current slashed one! . I know its from 2010 but if you google it there was a surveyt dojne which said average wage was £30k Premiership, £4,1k Championship, £1.4k L1 and £750 L2 - showing a gulf between each division . L1 being double L2 and Championship 4 times the size of L1![/p][/quote]LR good stats, but I don't think the L1 to L2 stat is that significant, despite being 100% higher in L1. Prem to L1 is the point I was making really, £30k players dropping to a £1.4k league is where you get huge problems, while £1.4k dropping to a £750 league is not such an issue and you can always sell or lose a player or two. These parachute payments also make a mockery of who is a big club - as Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham are now the biggest 3 clubs in the Championship with their £100 million windfalls, despite more history and bigger fan base of other clubs in the division, for example 'the mighty' Leeds how do they begin to compete with those three clubs?.... Wilesy
  • Score: 1

12:00am Sat 24 May 14

mancrobin says...

TheDukeOfBanbury wrote:
Next Tuesday wrote:
STFConyourpitch wrote:
I agree it's a terrible idea. I rather see England national team fail than see my local club die.
Sorry but that comment is ridiculous.

Who can forget the national fervour when England won the Tournoi de France in 1997? Nothing Swindon Town have or could achieve could ever compete with that.

Some people need to get with reality. If the B league helps out with the England team, which it undoubtedly would, then I for one am all in favour. 17 years without a trophy is far too long.
Is it ?
Don't give two monkeys about the Premiership and can't get excited watching England.

Swindon for me loud and proud.
Duke, why do we have to chose?

Swindon will always be my main passion but I'm looking forward to seeing England play in the World Cup whether they do well or not and even more so because nobody expects that much. Give the youngsters a chance to shine without the normal ridiculous expectations we place on the national team.

As for the Premiership, it is great to watch and I never miss a MoTD. Much better than the dross served up in the 70's.

The issue isn't about choosing between them but getting the right balance because if any should disappear, the game of football would be the poorer.

I'm not in favour of a B League but I do believe we need to support the development of local talent and try to bridge the ever increasing financial gulf.. Tennis seems to provide an interesting example by ploughing a lot of money into the grass roots. We should be doing the same with the Premier league. Ring fence some of the money to make sure Mannington Park is full of local kids on a Sunday morning.
[quote][p][bold]TheDukeOfBanbury[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Next Tuesday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]STFConyourpitch[/bold] wrote: I agree it's a terrible idea. I rather see England national team fail than see my local club die.[/p][/quote]Sorry but that comment is ridiculous. Who can forget the national fervour when England won the Tournoi de France in 1997? Nothing Swindon Town have or could achieve could ever compete with that. Some people need to get with reality. If the B league helps out with the England team, which it undoubtedly would, then I for one am all in favour. 17 years without a trophy is far too long.[/p][/quote]Is it ? Don't give two monkeys about the Premiership and can't get excited watching England. Swindon for me loud and proud.[/p][/quote]Duke, why do we have to chose? Swindon will always be my main passion but I'm looking forward to seeing England play in the World Cup whether they do well or not and even more so because nobody expects that much. Give the youngsters a chance to shine without the normal ridiculous expectations we place on the national team. As for the Premiership, it is great to watch and I never miss a MoTD. Much better than the dross served up in the 70's. The issue isn't about choosing between them but getting the right balance because if any should disappear, the game of football would be the poorer. I'm not in favour of a B League but I do believe we need to support the development of local talent and try to bridge the ever increasing financial gulf.. Tennis seems to provide an interesting example by ploughing a lot of money into the grass roots. We should be doing the same with the Premier league. Ring fence some of the money to make sure Mannington Park is full of local kids on a Sunday morning. mancrobin
  • Score: 3

12:08am Sat 24 May 14

Oxon-Red says...

Interesting that the Dyke proposals are for the good of English football and the results of yesterdays elections. Rethink Dyke maybe ?

Another interesting thought, how many Prem club supporters who voted for UKIP would welcome Lewandowski into their team.

Football needs to change but not at the grass roots. Top down Dyke, starting with you, by getting people in that know football. Time Trevor Brooking was given Carte Blanche.

COYMR

COYMR
Interesting that the Dyke proposals are for the good of English football and the results of yesterdays elections. Rethink Dyke maybe ? Another interesting thought, how many Prem club supporters who voted for UKIP would welcome Lewandowski into their team. Football needs to change but not at the grass roots. Top down Dyke, starting with you, by getting people in that know football. Time Trevor Brooking was given Carte Blanche. COYMR COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

7:14am Sat 24 May 14

LydiardRED67 says...

For the record, I think the the league 3 and B teams is a terrible idea and can't see it happening.

That said, the debate needed to happen on how to bring on English talent and it needed a radical approach which we have not seen before.

Mt own opinion on what is wrong with our game is the fact that Prem teams are spineless and bow down to the quick fix by buying ready made template footballers to keep their top tier status.

Look to their set ups and acadamies and you see whole swages of youth taken from the lower leagues clubs who will neve see the light of day.

Hands up who thinks Alex Henshall will ever play for Man City? Southampton have proved that an academy of locally produced talent interspersed with choice foreign imports can be successful, and that doesn't take into account Bale, Walcott and the like who they have sold.

Ironic that after a succesful season the established clubs are now focusing their eforts on these "new stars".

My radial solution would be a complete overhal of the loan system. It cannot be right that a team liek Chelsea (and they re not alone) can have 30 plus payers out on loan and it seems the point is to stop someone else having a player than necessarily wanting them.

Think on this. Ban the loan system and what happens? A player has a choice to make. He can stay at his lower league club and develop into the first team, play well and move on for a fee and be a recognised first team player. The selling club benefits, the player benifits through experience and the buying club gets a prven talent.

At the moment, we have large academies full of players who will never get their chance, until they go out on loan to clubs like STFC who are now unable to have meaningful youth set ups as all the decent local talent moves away at 15 or 16, save the few like the Thompsons.

Like I said earlier, a good debate to be had but it does have the wiff of the Premier League about it rather than the FA and a blueprint for the greater good.
For the record, I think the the league 3 and B teams is a terrible idea and can't see it happening. That said, the debate needed to happen on how to bring on English talent and it needed a radical approach which we have not seen before. Mt own opinion on what is wrong with our game is the fact that Prem teams are spineless and bow down to the quick fix by buying ready made template footballers to keep their top tier status. Look to their set ups and acadamies and you see whole swages of youth taken from the lower leagues clubs who will neve see the light of day. Hands up who thinks Alex Henshall will ever play for Man City? Southampton have proved that an academy of locally produced talent interspersed with choice foreign imports can be successful, and that doesn't take into account Bale, Walcott and the like who they have sold. Ironic that after a succesful season the established clubs are now focusing their eforts on these "new stars". My radial solution would be a complete overhal of the loan system. It cannot be right that a team liek Chelsea (and they re not alone) can have 30 plus payers out on loan and it seems the point is to stop someone else having a player than necessarily wanting them. Think on this. Ban the loan system and what happens? A player has a choice to make. He can stay at his lower league club and develop into the first team, play well and move on for a fee and be a recognised first team player. The selling club benefits, the player benifits through experience and the buying club gets a prven talent. At the moment, we have large academies full of players who will never get their chance, until they go out on loan to clubs like STFC who are now unable to have meaningful youth set ups as all the decent local talent moves away at 15 or 16, save the few like the Thompsons. Like I said earlier, a good debate to be had but it does have the wiff of the Premier League about it rather than the FA and a blueprint for the greater good. LydiardRED67
  • Score: 0

10:43am Sat 24 May 14

Oi Den! says...

Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one.

The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else.

We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong.

The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.
Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one. The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else. We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong. The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death. Oi Den!
  • Score: -2

10:45am Sat 24 May 14

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Brainy_G93 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I wish you would give everyone else a rest !
You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.
Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.
Oh give it a rest !
[quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I wish you would give everyone else a rest ! You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.[/p][/quote]Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.[/p][/quote]Oh give it a rest ! Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

10:46am Sat 24 May 14

Oi Den! says...

Sorry - ignore the "or" in the para about brands.
Sorry - ignore the "or" in the para about brands. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

11:22am Sat 24 May 14

Brainy_G93 says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I wish you would give everyone else a rest !
You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.
Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.
Oh give it a rest !
Idiot.
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I wish you would give everyone else a rest ! You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.[/p][/quote]Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.[/p][/quote]Oh give it a rest ![/p][/quote]Idiot. Brainy_G93
  • Score: 0

11:52am Sat 24 May 14

LydiardRED67 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one.

The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else.

We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong.

The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.
Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are.

You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple.

We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to.

On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough.

Now that would be radical.............
...
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one. The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else. We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong. The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.[/p][/quote]Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are. You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple. We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to. On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough. Now that would be radical............. ... LydiardRED67
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Sat 24 May 14

Next Tuesday says...

Saw Phil Smith in Asda earlier. Good to see he still lives in the area. Although Wes undoubtedly has more presence in the box, I always felt Smith was a better shot stopper and better keeper in many respects, while being prone to the odd mistake.

Could be a suitable replacement when Wes leaves and I reckon we could probably get him for 2K a week or less.
Saw Phil Smith in Asda earlier. Good to see he still lives in the area. Although Wes undoubtedly has more presence in the box, I always felt Smith was a better shot stopper and better keeper in many respects, while being prone to the odd mistake. Could be a suitable replacement when Wes leaves and I reckon we could probably get him for 2K a week or less. Next Tuesday
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Sat 24 May 14

port de soller says...

No matter how the Fans in England witter on the FA do not in my opinion care about anything else out of the top Leauge.It is all about Money.The Fl also do not do smaller clubs outside the championship much support other than peanelise the.smaller clubs
Worse thing that happened was they done away with div 1/2/3/4
all for the sake of the richer clubs greed.
As for our beloved STFC no news on the Court case,however look at our clubs dodgy record over the years we seem to attract the scum,and when we get a decent mega rich board the powers to be blow it.
Now several weeks to pre season training next season may be a difficult one,yet we did think it ref last season and finished 8th a decent achievement
No matter how the Fans in England witter on the FA do not in my opinion care about anything else out of the top Leauge.It is all about Money.The Fl also do not do smaller clubs outside the championship much support other than peanelise the.smaller clubs Worse thing that happened was they done away with div 1/2/3/4 all for the sake of the richer clubs greed. As for our beloved STFC no news on the Court case,however look at our clubs dodgy record over the years we seem to attract the scum,and when we get a decent mega rich board the powers to be blow it. Now several weeks to pre season training next season may be a difficult one,yet we did think it ref last season and finished 8th a decent achievement port de soller
  • Score: 1

10:03am Sun 25 May 14

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Brainy_G93 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I wish you would give everyone else a rest !
You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.
Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.
Oh give it a rest !
Idiot.
Give it, but cant take it, eh !
Typical of morons like you.
[quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I wish you would give everyone else a rest ! You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.[/p][/quote]Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.[/p][/quote]Oh give it a rest ![/p][/quote]Idiot.[/p][/quote]Give it, but cant take it, eh ! Typical of morons like you. Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 0

11:01am Sun 25 May 14

the wizard says...

Next Tuesday wrote:
Saw Phil Smith in Asda earlier. Good to see he still lives in the area. Although Wes undoubtedly has more presence in the box, I always felt Smith was a better shot stopper and better keeper in many respects, while being prone to the odd mistake.

Could be a suitable replacement when Wes leaves and I reckon we could probably get him for 2K a week or less.
He has just done a loan spell, 1 month, at Conference side Dartford, so with every best will and intention I don't think he would be a big hit back here as he must now be pushing mid thirties so fitness is probably going to be an issue at this level .With our back line yet to be confirmed a superb goalie is going to be essential, which is why I sincerely hope we hang on the Wes.
[quote][p][bold]Next Tuesday[/bold] wrote: Saw Phil Smith in Asda earlier. Good to see he still lives in the area. Although Wes undoubtedly has more presence in the box, I always felt Smith was a better shot stopper and better keeper in many respects, while being prone to the odd mistake. Could be a suitable replacement when Wes leaves and I reckon we could probably get him for 2K a week or less.[/p][/quote]He has just done a loan spell, 1 month, at Conference side Dartford, so with every best will and intention I don't think he would be a big hit back here as he must now be pushing mid thirties so fitness is probably going to be an issue at this level .With our back line yet to be confirmed a superb goalie is going to be essential, which is why I sincerely hope we hang on the Wes. the wizard
  • Score: 1

3:20pm Sun 25 May 14

Brainy_G93 says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
Oh give it a rest.
I wish you would give everyone else a rest !
You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.
Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.
Oh give it a rest !
Idiot.
Give it, but cant take it, eh !
Typical of morons like you.
Why am I a moron? What have I said that upsets you so much...It wasn't my intention to offend anyone.....I was just getting a bit fed up of this same old story every day. Am I not entitled to that?
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: Oh give it a rest.[/p][/quote]I wish you would give everyone else a rest ! You must be the most boring contributor ever to have posted on this Forum.[/p][/quote]Don't be so rude. I only said what I said because, as LR says, we've had articles and comments galore on this subject for a couple of weeks now from everyone under the sun. Come on, we all know it's a bad idea, why do we have to keep going over the same rubbish all the time.[/p][/quote]Oh give it a rest ![/p][/quote]Idiot.[/p][/quote]Give it, but cant take it, eh ! Typical of morons like you.[/p][/quote]Why am I a moron? What have I said that upsets you so much...It wasn't my intention to offend anyone.....I was just getting a bit fed up of this same old story every day. Am I not entitled to that? Brainy_G93
  • Score: 4

7:50am Mon 26 May 14

London Red says...

LydiardRED67 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one.

The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else.

We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong.

The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.
Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are.

You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple.

We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to.

On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough.

Now that would be radical.............

...
It's not just pain - but you would bring financial trouble to even more clubs!
.
The fact is clubs can not afford to carry squads on 25-30 to cover the possibility of injuries etc
.
Ok the loan system needs tweaking to prevent clubs like Chelsea sending out an entire squad on loan - but banning it will cause more harm than good
.
Swindon has had loanees every season I can remember and it is only this year we have had the "we don't have an identity" - even though it is no different to 08/09 when we had a strong link to Celtic and had a useless player here in Hutchingson. Also like that season we then signed up some of those players and others - who went on to be the main part of our squad
.
The quality of football would also diminish as we would no longer see players like Ward or Ritchie coming in - if you think they will suddenly sign for another club to develop you are mistaken - read the Luke Chadwick article - he signed for Man U never expecting to make it - but find his level after being trained there - that will still happen!
[quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one. The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else. We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong. The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.[/p][/quote]Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are. You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple. We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to. On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough. Now that would be radical............. ...[/p][/quote]It's not just pain - but you would bring financial trouble to even more clubs! . The fact is clubs can not afford to carry squads on 25-30 to cover the possibility of injuries etc . Ok the loan system needs tweaking to prevent clubs like Chelsea sending out an entire squad on loan - but banning it will cause more harm than good . Swindon has had loanees every season I can remember and it is only this year we have had the "we don't have an identity" - even though it is no different to 08/09 when we had a strong link to Celtic and had a useless player here in Hutchingson. Also like that season we then signed up some of those players and others - who went on to be the main part of our squad . The quality of football would also diminish as we would no longer see players like Ward or Ritchie coming in - if you think they will suddenly sign for another club to develop you are mistaken - read the Luke Chadwick article - he signed for Man U never expecting to make it - but find his level after being trained there - that will still happen! London Red
  • Score: 1

10:24am Mon 26 May 14

peter41 says...

It's simple really, all this long winded conversation about a idea that will only benefit the big people. If you want to have British talent in the Premier league then make the clubs have a minimum 50% British team sheet on match days(and not this home grown cop out of young foreign players) Yes the standard may suffer initially but wouldn't it be fantastic to watch our young talent learning, improving and gaining experience for the future. Leave our lower leagues alone and let us enjoy the passion and thrill of our wonderful set up.
It's simple really, all this long winded conversation about a idea that will only benefit the big people. If you want to have British talent in the Premier league then make the clubs have a minimum 50% British team sheet on match days(and not this home grown cop out of young foreign players) Yes the standard may suffer initially but wouldn't it be fantastic to watch our young talent learning, improving and gaining experience for the future. Leave our lower leagues alone and let us enjoy the passion and thrill of our wonderful set up. peter41
  • Score: 1

10:25am Mon 26 May 14

old town robin says...

Every day I look to see if there is any worthwhile news on the town, but apart from the piece on us looking for new sponsors there hasn't been one other article of interest from the Adver with news about OUR club for more than two weeks.

I appreciate that is probably more to do with STFC staying schtum rather than Moorshead taking his holidays or playing cricket, but surely something apart from the pitch being dug up, there must be more going on other than a lick of paint here and there.

Whilst the ownership is being sorted out it seems everything is suspended in limbo, Surely there must be some news of note to share with readers. it would be nice to hear if the 4 offered contracts have accepted them or not, (I would expect Waldron, Bartham and Branco to sign, but not sure if Troy will put pen to paper). Then what about Wardy, is he going to carry on playing or hang up his boots to concentrate on coaching. news about his future has been very quiet since the Wolves game where he was left exposed unable to deal with players with pace like Sako, surely time to call it a day.

Congratulations on Rotherham getting promoted. I never understood why Wilson didn't take the option up on Alex Revell always thought he looked decent and put a shift in. of course his chances were limited with Austin and Paynter on fire, but he would have been a good asset ready to step up when the other two left, certainly better than what Dovi and Pericard turned out to be.

See the Steve Evans sprint down the touchline has gone viral on UTube, priceless as he nearly lost his trousers. In fairness he's a character and a good motivator, has done well for them with back to back promotions, he'll be sure to ruffle a few feathers in the championship and with their new stadium and the two Sheffield teams in decline them along with Leeds are probably the best Yorkshire has to offer.
Every day I look to see if there is any worthwhile news on the town, but apart from the piece on us looking for new sponsors there hasn't been one other article of interest from the Adver with news about OUR club for more than two weeks. I appreciate that is probably more to do with STFC staying schtum rather than Moorshead taking his holidays or playing cricket, but surely something apart from the pitch being dug up, there must be more going on other than a lick of paint here and there. Whilst the ownership is being sorted out it seems everything is suspended in limbo, Surely there must be some news of note to share with readers. it would be nice to hear if the 4 offered contracts have accepted them or not, (I would expect Waldron, Bartham and Branco to sign, but not sure if Troy will put pen to paper). Then what about Wardy, is he going to carry on playing or hang up his boots to concentrate on coaching. news about his future has been very quiet since the Wolves game where he was left exposed unable to deal with players with pace like Sako, surely time to call it a day. Congratulations on Rotherham getting promoted. I never understood why Wilson didn't take the option up on Alex Revell always thought he looked decent and put a shift in. of course his chances were limited with Austin and Paynter on fire, but he would have been a good asset ready to step up when the other two left, certainly better than what Dovi and Pericard turned out to be. See the Steve Evans sprint down the touchline has gone viral on UTube, priceless as he nearly lost his trousers. In fairness he's a character and a good motivator, has done well for them with back to back promotions, he'll be sure to ruffle a few feathers in the championship and with their new stadium and the two Sheffield teams in decline them along with Leeds are probably the best Yorkshire has to offer. old town robin
  • Score: 1

12:07pm Mon 26 May 14

Oi Den! says...

London Red wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one.

The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else.

We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong.

The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.
Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are.

You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple.

We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to.

On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough.

Now that would be radical.............


...
It's not just pain - but you would bring financial trouble to even more clubs!
.
The fact is clubs can not afford to carry squads on 25-30 to cover the possibility of injuries etc
.
Ok the loan system needs tweaking to prevent clubs like Chelsea sending out an entire squad on loan - but banning it will cause more harm than good
.
Swindon has had loanees every season I can remember and it is only this year we have had the "we don't have an identity" - even though it is no different to 08/09 when we had a strong link to Celtic and had a useless player here in Hutchingson. Also like that season we then signed up some of those players and others - who went on to be the main part of our squad
.
The quality of football would also diminish as we would no longer see players like Ward or Ritchie coming in - if you think they will suddenly sign for another club to develop you are mistaken - read the Luke Chadwick article - he signed for Man U never expecting to make it - but find his level after being trained there - that will still happen!
LR, my view on the matter has never changed. Loans have become far too prevalent in the game over recent years. You may be right in saying clubs can't afford to carry the number of players they need. Well, doesn't that mean something is wrong? Wouldn't you rather see a team of Swindon Town players, comprising the manager's shrewd acquisitions and players who've come through the ranks at the County Ground, than a side that relies on a handful of someone else's players?
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one. The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else. We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong. The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.[/p][/quote]Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are. You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple. We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to. On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough. Now that would be radical............. ...[/p][/quote]It's not just pain - but you would bring financial trouble to even more clubs! . The fact is clubs can not afford to carry squads on 25-30 to cover the possibility of injuries etc . Ok the loan system needs tweaking to prevent clubs like Chelsea sending out an entire squad on loan - but banning it will cause more harm than good . Swindon has had loanees every season I can remember and it is only this year we have had the "we don't have an identity" - even though it is no different to 08/09 when we had a strong link to Celtic and had a useless player here in Hutchingson. Also like that season we then signed up some of those players and others - who went on to be the main part of our squad . The quality of football would also diminish as we would no longer see players like Ward or Ritchie coming in - if you think they will suddenly sign for another club to develop you are mistaken - read the Luke Chadwick article - he signed for Man U never expecting to make it - but find his level after being trained there - that will still happen![/p][/quote]LR, my view on the matter has never changed. Loans have become far too prevalent in the game over recent years. You may be right in saying clubs can't afford to carry the number of players they need. Well, doesn't that mean something is wrong? Wouldn't you rather see a team of Swindon Town players, comprising the manager's shrewd acquisitions and players who've come through the ranks at the County Ground, than a side that relies on a handful of someone else's players? Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

12:42pm Mon 26 May 14

port de soller says...

Yet another week goes past.Now into holiday season almost.
Fans have dished out hard earned cash for season tickets only for Jed and his motley crew to try and take advantage.
Alas i just fear something will happen and maybe will be the end for STFC.Makes you think the price the club paid for all tose wages paid and money just wasted.
It is hard to really comment as none of us know what has gone on?????
Not once have the Fans been told the real TRUTH''???????
Surely this Court case should have been resolved.Don´t know how the normal Fan feels but I just think the club has been run into the ground.
You only have to look at wages paid for a second division team,no wonder dicannio got us promoted but the well went dry in the end.
Still we can hope,however who in there right mind would invest in STFC the way it is right now.
Like a ship without water.
Yet another week goes past.Now into holiday season almost. Fans have dished out hard earned cash for season tickets only for Jed and his motley crew to try and take advantage. Alas i just fear something will happen and maybe will be the end for STFC.Makes you think the price the club paid for all tose wages paid and money just wasted. It is hard to really comment as none of us know what has gone on????? Not once have the Fans been told the real TRUTH''??????? Surely this Court case should have been resolved.Don´t know how the normal Fan feels but I just think the club has been run into the ground. You only have to look at wages paid for a second division team,no wonder dicannio got us promoted but the well went dry in the end. Still we can hope,however who in there right mind would invest in STFC the way it is right now. Like a ship without water. port de soller
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Mon 26 May 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
London Red wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one.

The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else.

We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong.

The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.
Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are.

You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple.

We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to.

On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough.

Now that would be radical.............



...
It's not just pain - but you would bring financial trouble to even more clubs!
.
The fact is clubs can not afford to carry squads on 25-30 to cover the possibility of injuries etc
.
Ok the loan system needs tweaking to prevent clubs like Chelsea sending out an entire squad on loan - but banning it will cause more harm than good
.
Swindon has had loanees every season I can remember and it is only this year we have had the "we don't have an identity" - even though it is no different to 08/09 when we had a strong link to Celtic and had a useless player here in Hutchingson. Also like that season we then signed up some of those players and others - who went on to be the main part of our squad
.
The quality of football would also diminish as we would no longer see players like Ward or Ritchie coming in - if you think they will suddenly sign for another club to develop you are mistaken - read the Luke Chadwick article - he signed for Man U never expecting to make it - but find his level after being trained there - that will still happen!
LR, my view on the matter has never changed. Loans have become far too prevalent in the game over recent years. You may be right in saying clubs can't afford to carry the number of players they need. Well, doesn't that mean something is wrong? Wouldn't you rather see a team of Swindon Town players, comprising the manager's shrewd acquisitions and players who've come through the ranks at the County Ground, than a side that relies on a handful of someone else's players?
I'd rather see an STFC team which is exciting and winning
.
If that means a few loan layers aiding to that - that is fine by me - especially as a lot of the time the loanee is better than we could ever afford
.
Hollands, Martin and Darren Ward were all instrumental at the end of PdC reign
.
Ferry and Danny Ward were instrumental in 09/10
.
You could go back further and always find loan players involved
.
Then some like Ferry, Ritchie, Byrne and Luongo join and become "shrewd acquisitions"
.
I've never felt we were not STFC - even when all 3 Spurs loanees played - Pritchard in particular never played any different to our players
.
As long as we always have a core who ours - we will have our identity - we had / have that
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one. The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else. We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong. The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.[/p][/quote]Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are. You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple. We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to. On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough. Now that would be radical............. ...[/p][/quote]It's not just pain - but you would bring financial trouble to even more clubs! . The fact is clubs can not afford to carry squads on 25-30 to cover the possibility of injuries etc . Ok the loan system needs tweaking to prevent clubs like Chelsea sending out an entire squad on loan - but banning it will cause more harm than good . Swindon has had loanees every season I can remember and it is only this year we have had the "we don't have an identity" - even though it is no different to 08/09 when we had a strong link to Celtic and had a useless player here in Hutchingson. Also like that season we then signed up some of those players and others - who went on to be the main part of our squad . The quality of football would also diminish as we would no longer see players like Ward or Ritchie coming in - if you think they will suddenly sign for another club to develop you are mistaken - read the Luke Chadwick article - he signed for Man U never expecting to make it - but find his level after being trained there - that will still happen![/p][/quote]LR, my view on the matter has never changed. Loans have become far too prevalent in the game over recent years. You may be right in saying clubs can't afford to carry the number of players they need. Well, doesn't that mean something is wrong? Wouldn't you rather see a team of Swindon Town players, comprising the manager's shrewd acquisitions and players who've come through the ranks at the County Ground, than a side that relies on a handful of someone else's players?[/p][/quote]I'd rather see an STFC team which is exciting and winning . If that means a few loan layers aiding to that - that is fine by me - especially as a lot of the time the loanee is better than we could ever afford . Hollands, Martin and Darren Ward were all instrumental at the end of PdC reign . Ferry and Danny Ward were instrumental in 09/10 . You could go back further and always find loan players involved . Then some like Ferry, Ritchie, Byrne and Luongo join and become "shrewd acquisitions" . I've never felt we were not STFC - even when all 3 Spurs loanees played - Pritchard in particular never played any different to our players . As long as we always have a core who ours - we will have our identity - we had / have that London Red
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Mon 26 May 14

Oi Den! says...

We both want to see a team that's exciting and winning. I'm not against the principle of borrowing players to plug the odd gap but I would prefer loan players to be a minimal part of that team. You haven't dealt with the main point. Isn't there something wrong with the game when lower division clubs can't field a team without using several players from elsewhere?
We both want to see a team that's exciting and winning. I'm not against the principle of borrowing players to plug the odd gap but I would prefer loan players to be a minimal part of that team. You haven't dealt with the main point. Isn't there something wrong with the game when lower division clubs can't field a team without using several players from elsewhere? Oi Den!
  • Score: 5

6:04pm Mon 26 May 14

sadgit says...

The loan system is a farce and always has been.
Every club should stand on their own two feet or not at all.
I want to support STFC not Spurs reserves.
The loan system is a farce and always has been. Every club should stand on their own two feet or not at all. I want to support STFC not Spurs reserves. sadgit
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Mon 26 May 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
We both want to see a team that's exciting and winning. I'm not against the principle of borrowing players to plug the odd gap but I would prefer loan players to be a minimal part of that team. You haven't dealt with the main point. Isn't there something wrong with the game when lower division clubs can't field a team without using several players from elsewhere?
Never said they can't field a team - just can't afford a big enough squad to cope with and injury crisis
.
Now one way is to slash wages so the wage bill is the same just shared between 30 not 20 - though that will only see poorer quality players as the best will head to where the money is
.
If quality becomes lower crowds become lower and the cycle continues!
.
We all know something is wrong and has been for 20 odd years now
.
But until the Premiership and FA want to realise the real issue is distribution of wealth then it will never change and loans will become more and more vital to clubs lower down the leagues
.
Ban parachute payments, redistribute TV money more evenly, limit squad sizes (actual limits - not 25 plus unlimited under 21s), limit wages like in L1 and L2, prevent players U18 moving more than 100 miles from their first club and ban all transfers U16 plus limit loans out (Chelsea shouldn't be allowed to loan out 24!)
.
Then you would see loans reduce naturally as clubs could afford more and Premiership wouldn't hoard players
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: We both want to see a team that's exciting and winning. I'm not against the principle of borrowing players to plug the odd gap but I would prefer loan players to be a minimal part of that team. You haven't dealt with the main point. Isn't there something wrong with the game when lower division clubs can't field a team without using several players from elsewhere?[/p][/quote]Never said they can't field a team - just can't afford a big enough squad to cope with and injury crisis . Now one way is to slash wages so the wage bill is the same just shared between 30 not 20 - though that will only see poorer quality players as the best will head to where the money is . If quality becomes lower crowds become lower and the cycle continues! . We all know something is wrong and has been for 20 odd years now . But until the Premiership and FA want to realise the real issue is distribution of wealth then it will never change and loans will become more and more vital to clubs lower down the leagues . Ban parachute payments, redistribute TV money more evenly, limit squad sizes (actual limits - not 25 plus unlimited under 21s), limit wages like in L1 and L2, prevent players U18 moving more than 100 miles from their first club and ban all transfers U16 plus limit loans out (Chelsea shouldn't be allowed to loan out 24!) . Then you would see loans reduce naturally as clubs could afford more and Premiership wouldn't hoard players London Red
  • Score: 1

8:30pm Mon 26 May 14

Oi Den! says...

LR, It seems we're not that far apart on this after all. I disagree about the quality though. We are in the third tier. We don't necessarily need high quality players. I'm not advocating kick and rush but the truth is that it's winning games that brings the fans in. When we won two promotions under Macari, the football wasn't pretty but it was effective and attendances were good. The ideal combination is winning with good football. We'd be very lucky to get that in this division, especially if we can't afford to buy good players. We supposedly had several high quality players last season but fans - even season ticket holders - we're staying away because we played without any fight for so long. We're more likely to get out of this division - and increase attendances - with a team of our own well organised workhorses than with Premier League hopefuls who aren't good enough or aren't ready to play for the clubs that employ them.
LR, It seems we're not that far apart on this after all. I disagree about the quality though. We are in the third tier. We don't necessarily need high quality players. I'm not advocating kick and rush but the truth is that it's winning games that brings the fans in. When we won two promotions under Macari, the football wasn't pretty but it was effective and attendances were good. The ideal combination is winning with good football. We'd be very lucky to get that in this division, especially if we can't afford to buy good players. We supposedly had several high quality players last season but fans - even season ticket holders - we're staying away because we played without any fight for so long. We're more likely to get out of this division - and increase attendances - with a team of our own well organised workhorses than with Premier League hopefuls who aren't good enough or aren't ready to play for the clubs that employ them. Oi Den!
  • Score: 2

10:24pm Mon 26 May 14

London Red says...

Don't agree with that last part and this year proved it
.
Wolves were far from organised workhorses
.
Brentford too certainly were not with a fair few of and the best player in the division
.
Then Rotherham hVe shown that a sudden burst of investment gives you the extra to take you up - Thomas as an example who showed why Power wanted him on the last day - wouldn't come to us as didn't want to drop back to L1 - yet Power said the money Rotherham offered him was miles out of our league and enough for him to make the drop
.
We saw Bournemouth increases losses from 3m to 15m the season before adding quality like Ritchie and Grabbon to get out
.
The years before that too has always been the bigger clubs with more quality - Norwich Saints Charlton Leeds etc
.
Next year the teams to go up won't be the workhorses but the bigger spenders who add that touch of quality - so likely to be Sheff U, Bristol, Preston, Posh and if Robinson is right and MK spend they too could come back and maybe Fleetwood continue spending to do a "Rotherham"
.
I think Orient will have been found out and slump back down to be a top 10 team plus don't think Donny, Barnsley or Yeovil will so much either
.
Us - depends on Wes and Troy staying and who Powers 4 or 5 signings will be - the core is there we just need to add a touch too it to have the quality to compete for top 6
Don't agree with that last part and this year proved it . Wolves were far from organised workhorses . Brentford too certainly were not with a fair few of and the best player in the division . Then Rotherham hVe shown that a sudden burst of investment gives you the extra to take you up - Thomas as an example who showed why Power wanted him on the last day - wouldn't come to us as didn't want to drop back to L1 - yet Power said the money Rotherham offered him was miles out of our league and enough for him to make the drop . We saw Bournemouth increases losses from 3m to 15m the season before adding quality like Ritchie and Grabbon to get out . The years before that too has always been the bigger clubs with more quality - Norwich Saints Charlton Leeds etc . Next year the teams to go up won't be the workhorses but the bigger spenders who add that touch of quality - so likely to be Sheff U, Bristol, Preston, Posh and if Robinson is right and MK spend they too could come back and maybe Fleetwood continue spending to do a "Rotherham" . I think Orient will have been found out and slump back down to be a top 10 team plus don't think Donny, Barnsley or Yeovil will so much either . Us - depends on Wes and Troy staying and who Powers 4 or 5 signings will be - the core is there we just need to add a touch too it to have the quality to compete for top 6 London Red
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Mon 26 May 14

the wizard says...

LR, agreed, as long as Jed doesn't fleece Power and " take him to the cleaners".
LR, agreed, as long as Jed doesn't fleece Power and " take him to the cleaners". the wizard
  • Score: 0

11:10pm Mon 26 May 14

Oi Den! says...

LR, there's a world of difference between buying good players and borrowing unproven ones. Of course the clubs with financial clout have an advantage. What I'm saying is that if we're short of cash, which we are, our best chance of success is building a team of our own solid but perhaps unspectacular players, rather than getting in temporary help which by definition will be here today and gone tomorrow, when we just have to start the process all over again.
LR, there's a world of difference between buying good players and borrowing unproven ones. Of course the clubs with financial clout have an advantage. What I'm saying is that if we're short of cash, which we are, our best chance of success is building a team of our own solid but perhaps unspectacular players, rather than getting in temporary help which by definition will be here today and gone tomorrow, when we just have to start the process all over again. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

7:29am Tue 27 May 14

ciclosporindorset says...

Clubs are in a competitive situation covering several variables beyond than in the good old days. Whilst it is simple to think its all down to money, clubs need to counter varying attendances and therefore income from this and their benefactors - reality and fair competition must come from commercial income, better contacts in the game resulting in better loan favours, superior fitness, better training methods hence tactics, better youth set up, local catchment drawing in better potential etc. etc These are all potential sources of competitive advantage, clubs must use all avenues, too simple to think the loan system is the root of evil.
Clubs are in a competitive situation covering several variables beyond than in the good old days. Whilst it is simple to think its all down to money, clubs need to counter varying attendances and therefore income from this and their benefactors - reality and fair competition must come from commercial income, better contacts in the game resulting in better loan favours, superior fitness, better training methods hence tactics, better youth set up, local catchment drawing in better potential etc. etc These are all potential sources of competitive advantage, clubs must use all avenues, too simple to think the loan system is the root of evil. ciclosporindorset
  • Score: 0

8:01am Tue 27 May 14

London Red says...

This is where we will always differ
.
We've seen it time and time again and will continue to do so that a loanee or 2 often makes the difference
.
This is where clubs like ourselves can give themselves a competitive advantage by having contacts and a reputation of development to get the better loanees who while are unproven tend to be good - Pritchard being the prime example
.
Last year Brentford missed out somehow - but would not have been there if it was not for their loanees - Forshaw, Bidwell and Trotta - who 2 are now perm!
.
This year they had George Saville who gave them that little extra class
.
We have a great core and while yes I wish we could add 4 or 5 of that quality to make us the best with just STFC players - but that won't happen - look at last year with all of Backs money - we still needed loanees - so will be happy to see Power land is one or 2 quality loanees
This is where we will always differ . We've seen it time and time again and will continue to do so that a loanee or 2 often makes the difference . This is where clubs like ourselves can give themselves a competitive advantage by having contacts and a reputation of development to get the better loanees who while are unproven tend to be good - Pritchard being the prime example . Last year Brentford missed out somehow - but would not have been there if it was not for their loanees - Forshaw, Bidwell and Trotta - who 2 are now perm! . This year they had George Saville who gave them that little extra class . We have a great core and while yes I wish we could add 4 or 5 of that quality to make us the best with just STFC players - but that won't happen - look at last year with all of Backs money - we still needed loanees - so will be happy to see Power land is one or 2 quality loanees London Red
  • Score: 0

9:16am Tue 27 May 14

Oi Den! says...

ciclosporindorset wrote:
Clubs are in a competitive situation covering several variables beyond than in the good old days. Whilst it is simple to think its all down to money, clubs need to counter varying attendances and therefore income from this and their benefactors - reality and fair competition must come from commercial income, better contacts in the game resulting in better loan favours, superior fitness, better training methods hence tactics, better youth set up, local catchment drawing in better potential etc. etc These are all potential sources of competitive advantage, clubs must use all avenues, too simple to think the loan system is the root of evil.
Is anybody saying the loan system is the root of all evil? The game needs to address the causes of a situation where we and others have to rely so heavily on players of other clubs. I find it quite disappointing that so many people seem content with it. It must be music to the ears of the big Premier League clubs and the players who sign for them on the off chance that one day they'll make the breakthrough, rather than proving themselves at lower levels and working their way to the top.
[quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: Clubs are in a competitive situation covering several variables beyond than in the good old days. Whilst it is simple to think its all down to money, clubs need to counter varying attendances and therefore income from this and their benefactors - reality and fair competition must come from commercial income, better contacts in the game resulting in better loan favours, superior fitness, better training methods hence tactics, better youth set up, local catchment drawing in better potential etc. etc These are all potential sources of competitive advantage, clubs must use all avenues, too simple to think the loan system is the root of evil.[/p][/quote]Is anybody saying the loan system is the root of all evil? The game needs to address the causes of a situation where we and others have to rely so heavily on players of other clubs. I find it quite disappointing that so many people seem content with it. It must be music to the ears of the big Premier League clubs and the players who sign for them on the off chance that one day they'll make the breakthrough, rather than proving themselves at lower levels and working their way to the top. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

10:13am Tue 27 May 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
ciclosporindorset wrote: Clubs are in a competitive situation covering several variables beyond than in the good old days. Whilst it is simple to think its all down to money, clubs need to counter varying attendances and therefore income from this and their benefactors - reality and fair competition must come from commercial income, better contacts in the game resulting in better loan favours, superior fitness, better training methods hence tactics, better youth set up, local catchment drawing in better potential etc. etc These are all potential sources of competitive advantage, clubs must use all avenues, too simple to think the loan system is the root of evil.
Is anybody saying the loan system is the root of all evil? The game needs to address the causes of a situation where we and others have to rely so heavily on players of other clubs. I find it quite disappointing that so many people seem content with it. It must be music to the ears of the big Premier League clubs and the players who sign for them on the off chance that one day they'll make the breakthrough, rather than proving themselves at lower levels and working their way to the top.
The reason why so many are content with it is that we understand that real top draw quality players do not play for L1 sides
.
You can count on one hand top draw players like Beckham, Lampard, Rooney, Terry, Cole etc who have ever been involved with any FL club - let alone a L1 club!
.
So for us to see that type of player grace our grounds for a few months is exciting as we know to ever sign a player of that quality is what 1 in million
.
Flowers, Given, Carrick and Milner - 4 internationals we have had on loan - never would we have had them on our books!
.
Yes the odd star like Joe Hart started in the lower leagues - but other than him can you name another?
.
Lambert possibly - but that really shows the lack of quality in England that he is a full international as while good - he is is not a top draw quality player
.
The only other ones are the Saints players - which while they did drop down to L1 - were never really a L1 club - they are now and pretty much have always been a Premiership club
.
Yes something needs changing so Chelsea et al don't simply suck up all young players available and spit out the ones not good enough because Premiership clubs can afford to do that
.
Then loans can return to being more of the real quality players which make a difference and no one objects to seeing as they are true stars in the making benefitting all parties involved
.
Pritchard fits that bill for me as it seems he is now of to Wigan on loan - a team hoping to challenge at the top of the Championship - showing how highly rated he is already - the seaosn after - potentially could be in the Premiership?
.
20 STFC players and 5 loanees - is fine by me as they are still the minority - being out numbered 4-1 and even if all 5 started we still have 6 STFC players in the starting XI and 13 in the Match day squad - so have the majority always
.
As I said we have a great core and if we need a couple of loanees to make us challenge - I would rather that that sign a few workhorses and finish 10th
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: Clubs are in a competitive situation covering several variables beyond than in the good old days. Whilst it is simple to think its all down to money, clubs need to counter varying attendances and therefore income from this and their benefactors - reality and fair competition must come from commercial income, better contacts in the game resulting in better loan favours, superior fitness, better training methods hence tactics, better youth set up, local catchment drawing in better potential etc. etc These are all potential sources of competitive advantage, clubs must use all avenues, too simple to think the loan system is the root of evil.[/p][/quote]Is anybody saying the loan system is the root of all evil? The game needs to address the causes of a situation where we and others have to rely so heavily on players of other clubs. I find it quite disappointing that so many people seem content with it. It must be music to the ears of the big Premier League clubs and the players who sign for them on the off chance that one day they'll make the breakthrough, rather than proving themselves at lower levels and working their way to the top.[/p][/quote]The reason why so many are content with it is that we understand that real top draw quality players do not play for L1 sides . You can count on one hand top draw players like Beckham, Lampard, Rooney, Terry, Cole etc who have ever been involved with any FL club - let alone a L1 club! . So for us to see that type of player grace our grounds for a few months is exciting as we know to ever sign a player of that quality is what 1 in million . Flowers, Given, Carrick and Milner - 4 internationals we have had on loan - never would we have had them on our books! . Yes the odd star like Joe Hart started in the lower leagues - but other than him can you name another? . Lambert possibly - but that really shows the lack of quality in England that he is a full international as while good - he is is not a top draw quality player . The only other ones are the Saints players - which while they did drop down to L1 - were never really a L1 club - they are now and pretty much have always been a Premiership club . Yes something needs changing so Chelsea et al don't simply suck up all young players available and spit out the ones not good enough because Premiership clubs can afford to do that . Then loans can return to being more of the real quality players which make a difference and no one objects to seeing as they are true stars in the making benefitting all parties involved . Pritchard fits that bill for me as it seems he is now of to Wigan on loan - a team hoping to challenge at the top of the Championship - showing how highly rated he is already - the seaosn after - potentially could be in the Premiership? . 20 STFC players and 5 loanees - is fine by me as they are still the minority - being out numbered 4-1 and even if all 5 started we still have 6 STFC players in the starting XI and 13 in the Match day squad - so have the majority always . As I said we have a great core and if we need a couple of loanees to make us challenge - I would rather that that sign a few workhorses and finish 10th London Red
  • Score: 0

10:49am Tue 27 May 14

Wilesy says...

2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard.

Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system.

Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them

Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway.

I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.
2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard. Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system. Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway. I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic. Wilesy
  • Score: 0

11:27am Tue 27 May 14

Oi Den! says...

Wilesy wrote:
2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard.

Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system.

Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them

Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway.

I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.
Wilesy, I don't know where you get this idea of a "romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues". I'm certainly not suggesting it. By all means let's have a debate but not argue against something that hasn't been said!

I don't want to keep repeating the point but what I'm saying is that the best situation is we have a team made up of Swindon Town players - a mixture of those the manager has seen fit to sign and and those who have made their way up through the youth ranks. When there's a short-term emergency, the loan system is then used to plug the gap(s). If that really is such a romantic notion, something is seriously wrong.

So every club uses the system? Of course they do; they have very little choice. That makes it desirable? Not for me - and I recognise that most people seem to disagree.
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard. Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system. Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway. I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I don't know where you get this idea of a "romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues". I'm certainly not suggesting it. By all means let's have a debate but not argue against something that hasn't been said! I don't want to keep repeating the point but what I'm saying is that the best situation is we have a team made up of Swindon Town players - a mixture of those the manager has seen fit to sign and and those who have made their way up through the youth ranks. When there's a short-term emergency, the loan system is then used to plug the gap(s). If that really is such a romantic notion, something is seriously wrong. So every club uses the system? Of course they do; they have very little choice. That makes it desirable? Not for me - and I recognise that most people seem to disagree. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Tue 27 May 14

London Red says...

Wilesy wrote:
2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard. Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system. Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway. I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.
Add in half the Premiership too there Wilesy
.
Moses at Liverpool, Lakaku and Deulofeu at Everton, First Fabio then Zaha at Cardiff, Borini at Sunderland to name a few
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard. Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system. Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway. I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.[/p][/quote]Add in half the Premiership too there Wilesy . Moses at Liverpool, Lakaku and Deulofeu at Everton, First Fabio then Zaha at Cardiff, Borini at Sunderland to name a few London Red
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Tue 27 May 14

Wilesy says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard.

Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system.

Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them

Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway.

I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.
Wilesy, I don't know where you get this idea of a "romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues". I'm certainly not suggesting it. By all means let's have a debate but not argue against something that hasn't been said!

I don't want to keep repeating the point but what I'm saying is that the best situation is we have a team made up of Swindon Town players - a mixture of those the manager has seen fit to sign and and those who have made their way up through the youth ranks. When there's a short-term emergency, the loan system is then used to plug the gap(s). If that really is such a romantic notion, something is seriously wrong.

So every club uses the system? Of course they do; they have very little choice. That makes it desirable? Not for me - and I recognise that most people seem to disagree.
Is there little choice Den? All clubs if they wanted could adopt your model and play their own players (I didn't word it well but but by homegrown I meant non-loan). We could have got by without last season's loan players, but we chose to bring them in. We could have played more youngsters or brought in some lower quality low wage players (presumably Spurs paid most of the wages so didn't cost us a lot), but on paper we would (arguably) not have been as good,

Going back a year if we had the chance to retain Hollands and Martin to the end of last season as loan players would you have said "no thanks" out of principle?

Guess it comes down to money, clubs have a budget and try to get the best you can within the rules, wheeling and dealing a bit with loan players if you can. As LR says the Prem clubs are at it too.

Not having an argument and everyone quite rightly has their own opinion and morals, I just don't see how being a loanee or a permanent player makes a difference in this day and age, or why there should be a strong feeling against the loan system.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard. Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system. Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway. I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I don't know where you get this idea of a "romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues". I'm certainly not suggesting it. By all means let's have a debate but not argue against something that hasn't been said! I don't want to keep repeating the point but what I'm saying is that the best situation is we have a team made up of Swindon Town players - a mixture of those the manager has seen fit to sign and and those who have made their way up through the youth ranks. When there's a short-term emergency, the loan system is then used to plug the gap(s). If that really is such a romantic notion, something is seriously wrong. So every club uses the system? Of course they do; they have very little choice. That makes it desirable? Not for me - and I recognise that most people seem to disagree.[/p][/quote]Is there little choice Den? All clubs if they wanted could adopt your model and play their own players (I didn't word it well but but by homegrown I meant non-loan). We could have got by without last season's loan players, but we chose to bring them in. We could have played more youngsters or brought in some lower quality low wage players (presumably Spurs paid most of the wages so didn't cost us a lot), but on paper we would (arguably) not have been as good, Going back a year if we had the chance to retain Hollands and Martin to the end of last season as loan players would you have said "no thanks" out of principle? Guess it comes down to money, clubs have a budget and try to get the best you can within the rules, wheeling and dealing a bit with loan players if you can. As LR says the Prem clubs are at it too. Not having an argument and everyone quite rightly has their own opinion and morals, I just don't see how being a loanee or a permanent player makes a difference in this day and age, or why there should be a strong feeling against the loan system. Wilesy
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Tue 27 May 14

LydiardRED67 says...

London Red wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one.

The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else.

We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong.

The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.
Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are.

You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple.

We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to.

On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough.

Now that would be radical.............


...
It's not just pain - but you would bring financial trouble to even more clubs!
.
The fact is clubs can not afford to carry squads on 25-30 to cover the possibility of injuries etc
.
Ok the loan system needs tweaking to prevent clubs like Chelsea sending out an entire squad on loan - but banning it will cause more harm than good
.
Swindon has had loanees every season I can remember and it is only this year we have had the "we don't have an identity" - even though it is no different to 08/09 when we had a strong link to Celtic and had a useless player here in Hutchingson. Also like that season we then signed up some of those players and others - who went on to be the main part of our squad
.
The quality of football would also diminish as we would no longer see players like Ward or Ritchie coming in - if you think they will suddenly sign for another club to develop you are mistaken - read the Luke Chadwick article - he signed for Man U never expecting to make it - but find his level after being trained there - that will still happen!
You make some good points as always LR and I don't deny we have beneifited in the past. I wasn't only thinking about Swindon.

Think back to the previous few seasons in leagues 1 and 2 and the stronger teams are the ones who have had the better loans, not necessarily the strength of the club.

Also, ban the loan system and everyone will be in the same boat. A squad of 25 to 30 is affortdable if 8 to 10 of those are home grown youth products on their first contracts that DO get caled upon when needed, whereas at the moment as soon as injuries pick up, or form drops off we go running to the prem to take on some of their youth.

The other point to consider is that once the loan system is not there, young players will have a serious choice to make and after 2 or 3 years will, in my opinion will remain with their local clubs to get football.

As soon as players stay where they are, all leagues will gradually become stronger under their own productive systems, starting obviously with the Championship, and then filtering from there.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Lydiard, thank you. I've argued the same point on here a few times and I thought I was in a minority of one. The system is ridiculous. Top Premier League clubs just sweep up all these young players, some of whom won't necessarily make it at any level of professional football, let alone the Premier League. They take the gamble because in reality it's not much of a gamble at all. In their terms the sums of money are not great as they are awash with cash. Bizarrely, clubs like us take their players on loan and they end up getting financial assistance and a development/trial service from us. They win all round. What do we get out of it? We get the possibility of some useful temporary help (along with some of the aforementioned players who are just not good enough and are nothing but a nuisance to the clubs who signed them) but it does nothing for continuity or the club's identity. If a player proves his worth with us, we either have to spend a fortune to sign him on permanently or - more likely - we just accept that the parent club will sell him to somebody else. We saw a lot of blurb recently about the Swindon Town "brand". What a complete load of tosh. A football club is not a brand. We are not going to have, say or Bristol City supporters switching to us because we have a better "brand", are we? I suppose some will say that this wonderful brand helps us to get players on loan from big clubs. Back to square one. There is nothing wrong with borrowing players to cover genuine emergencies. When it becomes an unavoidable part of the game something has gone wrong. The "League 3"/Division 5 thing is just not going happen. As you say, Lydiard, it was a debate worth having but it's been done to death.[/p][/quote]Thanks Den and you are not alone. I would ban the loan system tomorrow and only allow emergencies for Goalkeepers as it is speciality position. Every club would feel a bit of pain for a 2 or 3 years but tthen the "parents" of these future superstars would start to realise that their beloeved talent iis better off where they are. You raise a good point about branding in football and it is not something a fan in the UK associates with their club. Branding is all about big club saleability abroad, plain and simple. We have had some great loan players over the years, but of the current crop who are aged between 21 and 23 you do look at them and think if they have not made it in the Prem by now, they are not going to. On the England front, wouldn't it be refreshing if the FA turned to the Championship for some players if the Glorious Premiership isn't producing enough. Now that would be radical............. ...[/p][/quote]It's not just pain - but you would bring financial trouble to even more clubs! . The fact is clubs can not afford to carry squads on 25-30 to cover the possibility of injuries etc . Ok the loan system needs tweaking to prevent clubs like Chelsea sending out an entire squad on loan - but banning it will cause more harm than good . Swindon has had loanees every season I can remember and it is only this year we have had the "we don't have an identity" - even though it is no different to 08/09 when we had a strong link to Celtic and had a useless player here in Hutchingson. Also like that season we then signed up some of those players and others - who went on to be the main part of our squad . The quality of football would also diminish as we would no longer see players like Ward or Ritchie coming in - if you think they will suddenly sign for another club to develop you are mistaken - read the Luke Chadwick article - he signed for Man U never expecting to make it - but find his level after being trained there - that will still happen![/p][/quote]You make some good points as always LR and I don't deny we have beneifited in the past. I wasn't only thinking about Swindon. Think back to the previous few seasons in leagues 1 and 2 and the stronger teams are the ones who have had the better loans, not necessarily the strength of the club. Also, ban the loan system and everyone will be in the same boat. A squad of 25 to 30 is affortdable if 8 to 10 of those are home grown youth products on their first contracts that DO get caled upon when needed, whereas at the moment as soon as injuries pick up, or form drops off we go running to the prem to take on some of their youth. The other point to consider is that once the loan system is not there, young players will have a serious choice to make and after 2 or 3 years will, in my opinion will remain with their local clubs to get football. As soon as players stay where they are, all leagues will gradually become stronger under their own productive systems, starting obviously with the Championship, and then filtering from there. LydiardRED67
  • Score: 0

7:29pm Tue 27 May 14

Oi Den! says...

Wilesy wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard.

Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system.

Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them

Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway.

I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.
Wilesy, I don't know where you get this idea of a "romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues". I'm certainly not suggesting it. By all means let's have a debate but not argue against something that hasn't been said!

I don't want to keep repeating the point but what I'm saying is that the best situation is we have a team made up of Swindon Town players - a mixture of those the manager has seen fit to sign and and those who have made their way up through the youth ranks. When there's a short-term emergency, the loan system is then used to plug the gap(s). If that really is such a romantic notion, something is seriously wrong.

So every club uses the system? Of course they do; they have very little choice. That makes it desirable? Not for me - and I recognise that most people seem to disagree.
Is there little choice Den? All clubs if they wanted could adopt your model and play their own players (I didn't word it well but but by homegrown I meant non-loan). We could have got by without last season's loan players, but we chose to bring them in. We could have played more youngsters or brought in some lower quality low wage players (presumably Spurs paid most of the wages so didn't cost us a lot), but on paper we would (arguably) not have been as good,

Going back a year if we had the chance to retain Hollands and Martin to the end of last season as loan players would you have said "no thanks" out of principle?

Guess it comes down to money, clubs have a budget and try to get the best you can within the rules, wheeling and dealing a bit with loan players if you can. As LR says the Prem clubs are at it too.

Not having an argument and everyone quite rightly has their own opinion and morals, I just don't see how being a loanee or a permanent player makes a difference in this day and age, or why there should be a strong feeling against the loan system.
Wilesy, this is interesting. You say all clubs could adopt "my" model but it isn't my model and it's hardly revolutionary. It's exactly what all clubs used to do and I think the game would be better for it if they still did. If they are not doing it now, surely it can only be because, as LR says, clubs can't afford to run their own squads? Or perhaps in some cases they are just looking for a quick fix? I'm not suggesting we make a stand on this - and it certainly has nothing to do with morals - so no, of course I wouldn't have turned down the chance to keep Hollands and Martin. But whatever success we get from it will not make me like the system - or rather its overuse - any more. The bottom line is that the top clubs have too much power, too much cash and too many players, while the rest of us are deemed unable to compete with each other without using players they've signed but have no place for. For example, not one of the players we borrowed from Spurs - including Pritchard and his cameo role - ever had a cat in hell's chance of making it in the Premier League. It's a mess. I know I speak for a small minority but I think the game has, predictably enough, gone a long way backwards in the last 20 years. This is what the FA should really be addressing. Fat chance while they are obsessed with their money monster and the England team.
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 2 parts to the loan system - the genuine 'emergency' loan like Reckord, and the strategic long-term loans like Pritchard. Regardless of the principles of reliance on loan players and the romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues, there's obviously a place for both types in 2014 as every club outside the Premiership uses the system. Not every loanee will be a roaring success, but the same risk applies to permanent players.....eg Alan Navarro, Lee Cox, Luke Rooney....and then you're stuck with them Also as you rarely get more than 100 games or 2 seasons from a permanent player before they move on for a few more £, there's little difference between loanees and permanents anyway. I would love to see a homegrown Swindon squad winning week in week out, but it's not realistic.[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I don't know where you get this idea of a "romantic notion of a homegrown team rising through the leagues". I'm certainly not suggesting it. By all means let's have a debate but not argue against something that hasn't been said! I don't want to keep repeating the point but what I'm saying is that the best situation is we have a team made up of Swindon Town players - a mixture of those the manager has seen fit to sign and and those who have made their way up through the youth ranks. When there's a short-term emergency, the loan system is then used to plug the gap(s). If that really is such a romantic notion, something is seriously wrong. So every club uses the system? Of course they do; they have very little choice. That makes it desirable? Not for me - and I recognise that most people seem to disagree.[/p][/quote]Is there little choice Den? All clubs if they wanted could adopt your model and play their own players (I didn't word it well but but by homegrown I meant non-loan). We could have got by without last season's loan players, but we chose to bring them in. We could have played more youngsters or brought in some lower quality low wage players (presumably Spurs paid most of the wages so didn't cost us a lot), but on paper we would (arguably) not have been as good, Going back a year if we had the chance to retain Hollands and Martin to the end of last season as loan players would you have said "no thanks" out of principle? Guess it comes down to money, clubs have a budget and try to get the best you can within the rules, wheeling and dealing a bit with loan players if you can. As LR says the Prem clubs are at it too. Not having an argument and everyone quite rightly has their own opinion and morals, I just don't see how being a loanee or a permanent player makes a difference in this day and age, or why there should be a strong feeling against the loan system.[/p][/quote]Wilesy, this is interesting. You say all clubs could adopt "my" model but it isn't my model and it's hardly revolutionary. It's exactly what all clubs used to do and I think the game would be better for it if they still did. If they are not doing it now, surely it can only be because, as LR says, clubs can't afford to run their own squads? Or perhaps in some cases they are just looking for a quick fix? I'm not suggesting we make a stand on this - and it certainly has nothing to do with morals - so no, of course I wouldn't have turned down the chance to keep Hollands and Martin. But whatever success we get from it will not make me like the system - or rather its overuse - any more. The bottom line is that the top clubs have too much power, too much cash and too many players, while the rest of us are deemed unable to compete with each other without using players they've signed but have no place for. For example, not one of the players we borrowed from Spurs - including Pritchard and his cameo role - ever had a cat in hell's chance of making it in the Premier League. It's a mess. I know I speak for a small minority but I think the game has, predictably enough, gone a long way backwards in the last 20 years. This is what the FA should really be addressing. Fat chance while they are obsessed with their money monster and the England team. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

8:03pm Wed 28 May 14

London Red says...

I see the FL are to propose my idea as an alternative to the League 3 - an expanded JPT!
.
Though they are planning a group stage where I was think just a bigger cup competition
.
I like the idea as it spices up the JPT which lots hate anyway and stops the stupid L3 idea
I see the FL are to propose my idea as an alternative to the League 3 - an expanded JPT! . Though they are planning a group stage where I was think just a bigger cup competition . I like the idea as it spices up the JPT which lots hate anyway and stops the stupid L3 idea London Red
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree