Torquay United Fans Forum

Isn't one of the levels split east/west rather than north/south? Something which makes a lot more sense because of the ease with which you can get from Torquay on to the A380/M5/M6 - making it easier to get to Manchester and beyond than the south east.

tomogull wrote:I can never understand why Gloucester, just up the road from Torquay, play in the National North !

Bad luck more than anything, the sheer amount of South-East teams skews the borderline of Conference North/South far further south than it should be really. To make it worse for them, dependent upon how other teams do they can get shunted North/South on an annual basis.

I agree with tomogull. Bob cubed has done well.

That's a gob-smacking, hell of a summary you've done there, three-bob. I bet it was more interesting doing that than watching the boring Cup Final. I would never have guessed that Braintree and Dover were farther away than Chester, Wrexham and Macclesfield for example. And because of the road network, getting to Dover probably takes longer than getting to Tranmere or Southport. Like you, I'm not a devotee of regional leagues and I think your findings show that there would be little saving in travel distances. I can never understand why Gloucester, just up the road from Torquay, play in the National North !

Regionalisation sounds good on paper but does it really help a club like Torquay?

I was curious about this so I did a very down and dirty number crunching exercise by getting Google to provide me with the suggested road distance between Torquay and all our league opponents for next year. Based on just that, the answer is...Kind of.

National League (in miles, from Torquay):
383.2 - Gateshead
348.2 - Barrow
312.7 - York
310.7 - Guiseley
310.0 - North Ferriby
279.6 - Southport
276.0 - Tranmere
272.8 - Braintree
269.6 - Lincoln
263.5 - Dover
258.0 - Dagenham
249.0 - Chester
244.4 - Macclesfield
243.2 - Wrexham
227.8 - Boreham Wood
225.6 - Maidstone
218.8 - Bromley
192.2 - Sutton
182.5 - Solihull Moors
170.3 - Woking
165.4 - Aldershot
131.1 - Eastleigh
123.7 - Forest Green

246.1 - MEAN
249.0 - MEDIAN

If you split the teams in half, north and south (with us in the south), it's true that most of the northern clubs represent our longest journeys, but not by much. The nearest "northern" club is Solihull, yet as you can see they will be our fifth closest journey for next season. It must be acknowledged also that Braintree, Dover and Dagenham are longer journeys for us than Chester, Macclesfield and Wrexham.

284.1 - NORTH MEAN
204.5 - SOUTH MEAN
277.8 - NORTH MEDIAN
218.8 - SOUTH MEDIAN

There's some mileage saved to be sure, but not much. It's perhaps ironic that of all the promoted teams, one from the Conference North is a shorter journey than the two that came up from the Conference South. So I figured I'd do the same for both the North and the South as it pertains to Torquay.

Predicted National North 2016/17
352.3 - Darlington
315.4 - Harrogate
300.8 - Bradford Park Avenue
295.9 - Halifax
295.4 - Fylde
290.4 - Gainsborough
287.6 - Boston
274.1 - Chorley
269.0 - FC United
267.2 - Stalybridge
267.0 - Salford
265.1 - Curzon Ashton
258.2 - Stockport
248.4 - Altrincham
243.8 - Alfreton
206.1 - Telford
202.1 - Nuneaton
201.8 - Tamworth
190.4 - Brackley
169.7 - Kidderminster
153.7 - Worcester
131.0 - Gloucester

Predicted National South 2016/17
271.8 - Concord Rangers
265.2 - Margate
263.0 - Chelmsford
259.1 - Bishop Stortford
225.7 - East Thurrock
223.7 - Welling
222.0 - St. Albans
221.5 - Ebbsfleet
220.2 - Hemel Hempstead
219.1 - Dartford
215.3 - Eastbourne
211.2 - Wealdstone
194.6 - Whitehawk
190.2 - Maidenhead
178.4 - Hampton & Richmond
170.6 - Oxford City
155.0 - Hungerford
149.2 - Gosport Borough
121.4 - Bath
106.5 - Truro
99.8 - Poole
79.1 - Weston Super Mare

249.3 - NORTH MEAN
193.8 - SOUTH MEAN
266.0 - NORTH MEDIAN
213.2 - SOUTH MEDIAN

Once again it's clear mileage can be saved with a regional split, but not nearly as much as one might think. In the case of the National South, we'd have been seeing only a slight reduction in journey distance had we been relegated. I'll also note that the one vaguely local journey we would have had isn't the club that was going to ground share with us. Kind of underlines what a daft idea that was!

From a football fan perspective, I'm against regionalisation. I like going to away games all around the country. It would seem there is a large number of Torquay supporters who do too. It always impresses me that we take such large numbers no matter where we are. It looked like we outnumbered Gateshead fans at their place. And there was a surprising amount of us in the never-ending rain at Barrow (and even more sensible ones in the stands) despite our grim outlook back then. There's obviously a contingent of Torquay supporters spread to all reaches of the country and beyond, it would seem a shame to limit the northern based ones their more local opportunities to see us play.

Although my findings do support regionalisation from an economic sense, it is in the pursuit of small gains from a Torquay point of view. It does also show that Torquay themselves are the major outliers in terms of the National League and travel distance. It must be said that purely from a travelling expenses perspective it would be a big benefit to many clubs, both north and south, if Torquay were not in their league!

My conclusion is therefore that the FA have a very simple solution in cutting down travelling times for clubs in non-league and bringing some much needed pride to the Football League: Automatically promote Torquay to League Two immediately. All those in favour say aye!

Regional Divisions won't happen. There are too many teams in the Midlands and around London who don't see it as the big issue like we do.

happytorq wrote:
I mean, I think they should at least consider it rather than dismiss it out of hand. I don't imagine the football league just wrote ideas down for the fun of it.

This will sound an awful lot like the precise argument I've been commenting against on here for the last week or so, but... I'd say they probably wrote down whichever idea made them most money.

That said, I and many others have said for a few years now that the Conference is basically Division Five these days anyway. There are very few genuinely proper 'non-league' teams in it anymore. Although with jokers like FGR being artificially boosted, there are more than there should be.

What would be wrong with the top 2 divisions being 20 teams each with the bottom 2 divisions being regionalised with 24 teams each
Keeps everybody happy

Judging by the mixed reaction to the news I cannot see them getting the required 90% - especially as there were a small number of chairmen who were aggrieved that the first they heard of the plans was via the press release!

I am struggling to see the real benefits in the idea for any of the parties involved.

For clubs the lost income is going to outweigh the potential costs savings. Cost savings are likely going to be on saving travel and accommodation to an extra 4 away games which will probably total tens of thousands However the lost gate receipts from four extra home games are likely to be greater than that for most clubs, particularly those in the Championship and larger clubs in League One and Two.

For those clubs which yo-yo between the Championship and League One there will be the fact they are likely to fall into the second tier of 20, which will mean a vast recuction in the solidarity payment they receive (unless this is re-written and overhauled). Currently it's £2.3m to Championship rising to £3m next season compared to £360k rising to £450k which is a significant chunk of money that clubs could see taken away from them by the proposal.

There will be limited cost saving from 8 less games per year on the playing side as clubs will still need a matchday squad of 11+7.

So for clubs I can't see any great benefit in the proposals unless there is something else in the idea which hasn't been well publicised.

One of the mooted reasons behind this is help fixture congestion but for non-PL clubs I never hear of this as being a problem. I cannot see how this will help the PL as there will still be a need to complete 38 games, plus FA and League Cup and European fixtures where needed.

It won't help bring in a winter break at the top level for the same reason as above with the same number of games - so no benefit to the national team.

So ultimately struggling. I just wonder if the idea is being proposed to create 8 extra spaces for the PL 'B' teams - which would be hugely damaging for the English League structure. I also wonder if Celtic and Rangers may sniff an opportunity to come south of the border- although I imagine this would be a long shot.

Gullscorer wrote:Our chairman David Phillips makes a good point when he says the lower leagues should be regionalised. Travelling from one end of the country to the other to play in front of tiny crowds is not something any club needs.

As for the National League, it will not be happy with the reduction in its status. But perhaps it should disappear altogether and merge with the Football League..

These are both good points. If the lower Football League divisions were regionalized then a nationwide National League division looks pretty daft. Also what purpose does the National League actually serve now? It was created in 1979 as the Alliance Premier League to strengthen the chances of clubs gaining election to the Football League by having only club apply for election each season. Now with automatic relegation and promotion between the leagues this is now longer necessary.

i was of the opinion that this was inevitable eventually but this plan would be thrown into total confusion if Premier league plans come to fruition at creating a Premier League 2

Our chairman David Phillips makes a good point when he says the lower leagues should be regionalised. Travelling from one end of the country to the other to play in front of tiny crowds is not something any club needs.

And if we're going to restructure the leagues, I'd suggest the lower divisions should have 22 teams rather than 20 (i.e. a reduction of 2 from the current 24), with 4 promoted (2 from each regional league) and 4 relegated. So: Premiership, Championship, League One, League Two (N), League Two (S).

As for the National League, it will not be happy with the reduction in its status. But perhaps it should disappear altogether and merge with the Football League..

Bear in mind that this is being driven by the Premier League, who are desperate to find a way of reducing the amount of games and bringing in a winter break in order to supposedly help their massively over paid primadonnas. This is shown by the fact that the initial discussions involved Premier League B teams possibly being involved (mentioned in yesterday's news stories and also about a year ago when the backlash halted the ideas). They want a unified standardised English calendar and better practice for their youth players and to hell with the effect on the Football League. This is why they tried and failed to insert B teams into the league structure and why they appear to have suceeded in getting them into the Football League Cup (no real loss).

The only way this should be allowed to happen is via more Premier League money being distributed to league clubs, and not just a little. A lot more.

I think a lot of depends on what happens with sponsorship, etc. If a title sponsor for the league can be found to pay more for sponsoring these four divisions, that could conceivably make up some of the shortfall. Also, with 4 fewer games you could possibly make the case that you'd need a slightly smaller squad (i doubt that'd happen, myself, but it's feasible.)

The big positive for me is the reduction in the number of Tuesday night games. Especially for a club like ours which is pretty difficult to get to on a weeknight for away fans. Our attendance is always going to be noticeably less on Tuesday nights for that reason, so potentially only have one of those games a season is tempting. This is also in addition to the savings that would presumably be made in not having to book overnight stays for the team
for the longer away Tuesday games. (although I don't know how often we actually do this)

The point about lower ticket revenue is probably fair, although a large part of these proposals is a guarantee that clubs won't lose money. For that to happen they'll be asking for more money from the Premier League clubs, which is possible because those clubs also want to reduce fixture congestion (from league cups, FA cups etc) - and with the huge new deal next year, there's a pretty decent chance the 'solidarity payments' will increase to accomodate the extra division.

I mean, I think they should at least consider it rather than dismiss it out of hand. I don't imagine the football league just wrote ideas down for the fun of it.

Very difficult to see Football League clubs voting for this proposal to go through. Totally agree that trickling down more TV money is a more palatable way to go, but there's no rush for that from the richest clubs.

Reduced income from the number of matches and the small number of no voters required (65 of the 72 current League clubs need to agree to this) should mean this will have to go back to the drawing board for at least a substantial tweak.