If they do use this to throw in Premier League B teams it will be an absolute disgrace. I've never disliked an idea in English Football more than that one in quite some time!
Bullshit. More bank holiday matches? How about not having international matches over bank holidays? The quote claims that less matches overall would mean more income due to them being weekends. I don't see the logic. This has to be in order to work toward a winter break. I can't see any other reason.
I've heard it's to reduce fixture congestion, 38 games a season instead of 46. In a season like the one we've just had that means about17% less torture, so there are benefits.
I have a bad feeling the whole 'this reduces fixture congestion' is just a load of spin to try and get clubs on board, whilst trying to cover up the obvious fact that clubs will lose money from four home games. Clubs in League One/Two are skint enough as it is, let alone without losing that revenue they rely on.
So what is the solution to make the money up to those clubs?
The Premier League stumps up a load of cash to have B teams come into the pyramid, which they've wanted all along.
Despise the idea, but thats what I think will happen.
Bullshit. More bank holiday matches? How about not having international matches over bank holidays? The quote claims that less matches overall would mean more income due to them being weekends. I don't see the logic. This has to be in order to work toward a winter break. I can't see any other reason.
How will there be more weekend matches? Unless they extend the season, surely they mean there will be less midweek gams.
Bullshit. More bank holiday matches? How about not having international matches over bank holidays? The quote claims that less matches overall would mean more income due to them being weekends. I don't see the logic. This has to be in order to work toward a winter break. I can't see any other reason.
How will there be more weekend matches? Unless they extend the season, surely they mean there will be less midweek gams.
They're saying that the 8 lost games will all be the midweek ones so we'd only play 1 midweek game a year which would apparently mean people buy more season tickets.
I don't understand the logic of it if I'm honest. The only way people would be more inclined to buy a season ticket is if they reduced the price of it but then if they reduced the price the clubs lose revenue but the FL are saying this would increase revenue? Flawed argument in my opinion.
EDIT: I think I see what @guinnessaddick is saying now which I agree with. It's not that there's more weekend games, it's just that they're cutting out the midweek ones?
If it is not to allow Prem British teams then I think standardisation of the Leagues is a good idea. However it is just an excuse for chairman to charge more per game for season tickets.
Bullshit. More bank holiday matches? How about not having international matches over bank holidays? The quote claims that less matches overall would mean more income due to them being weekends. I don't see the logic. This has to be in order to work toward a winter break. I can't see any other reason.
How will there be more weekend matches? Unless they extend the season, surely they mean there will be less midweek gams.
They're not saying there will be more weekend matches or bank holiday matches, they're saying that these will be a higher proportion of the games played, i.e. the 8 games a season lost will mostly be midweek games.
They also don't say it will increase revenues immediately. They think that concentrating on weekend games will eventually raise revenues. That's a big assertion, of course.
Bullshit. More bank holiday matches? How about not having international matches over bank holidays? The quote claims that less matches overall would mean more income due to them being weekends. I don't see the logic. This has to be in order to work toward a winter break. I can't see any other reason.
How will there be more weekend matches? Unless they extend the season, surely they mean there will be less midweek gams.
They're saying that the 8 lost games will all be the midweek ones so we'd only play 1 midweek game a year which would apparently mean people buy more season tickets.
I don't understand the logic of it if I'm honest. The only way people would be more inclined to buy a season ticket is if they reduced the price of it but then if they reduced the price the clubs lose revenue but the FL are saying this would increase revenue? Flawed argument in my opinion.
EDIT: I think I see what @guinnessaddick is saying now which I agree with. It's not that there's more weekend games, it's just that they're cutting out the midweek ones?
The article states that the FL understands this will lead to a potential loss in revenue but are asking clubs to look at the bigger picture.
I think 20 teams/league makes sense. 46 league games plus 2-3 cups (including qualifying/early rounds) is a lot of matches. You could make the argument that squads would be smaller, which might just about balance out the loss in matchday revenue. The press release calls if a "financial hair cut" which makes me very concerned.
It sounds as though they'd basically be looking to create a "League Three." It'd be great if they divided League Two into North and South to help save fans and clubs money on the cross country journey.
All-in-all what is stated seems like a decent idea. There is of course the concern of Prem sides trying to squeeze B teams in. But not having midweek matches would save supporters a lot of money on travel, which would be good for supporters, which makes me think there's something more going on here as the FL and PL never act in the interest of supporters without intense pressure...
Comments
Sound familiar?
More bank holiday matches? How about not having international matches over bank holidays?
The quote claims that less matches overall would mean more income due to them being weekends. I don't see the logic.
This has to be in order to work toward a winter break. I can't see any other reason.
So what is the solution to make the money up to those clubs?
The Premier League stumps up a load of cash to have B teams come into the pyramid, which they've wanted all along.
Despise the idea, but thats what I think will happen.
I'm not convinced that 4 less midweek home games will boost Saturday attendances, so that clubs will get greater revenue. Sounds a bit like EU logic
38 game seasons across the pro leagues makes sense to me, the Championship is too big at 24
I don't understand the logic of it if I'm honest. The only way people would be more inclined to buy a season ticket is if they reduced the price of it but then if they reduced the price the clubs lose revenue but the FL are saying this would increase revenue? Flawed argument in my opinion.
EDIT: I think I see what @guinnessaddick is saying now which I agree with. It's not that there's more weekend games, it's just that they're cutting out the midweek ones?
Roland you crafty c***
They also don't say it will increase revenues immediately. They think that concentrating on weekend games will eventually raise revenues. That's a big assertion, of course.
I think 20 teams/league makes sense. 46 league games plus 2-3 cups (including qualifying/early rounds) is a lot of matches. You could make the argument that squads would be smaller, which might just about balance out the loss in matchday revenue. The press release calls if a "financial hair cut" which makes me very concerned.
It sounds as though they'd basically be looking to create a "League Three." It'd be great if they divided League Two into North and South to help save fans and clubs money on the cross country journey.
All-in-all what is stated seems like a decent idea. There is of course the concern of Prem sides trying to squeeze B teams in. But not having midweek matches would save supporters a lot of money on travel, which would be good for supporters, which makes me think there's something more going on here as the FL and PL never act in the interest of supporters without intense pressure...