Conference trucks::football;1

    Reduce to 18 teams and keep the League Cup going. The fact remains that
    for smaller clubs it can be a goldmine, (ie York v ManU). It's about
    time the larger clubs acknowledged the debt they owe to the lower
    division clubs, who have supplied them with a constant stream of good
    young players for generations. Ditching the League Cup would be seen as
    an elitist move by the big guns....
    
    just my opinion, of course....
    
    Ray....

    As I entered the base note, I suppose I'd better state my case:
    
    I believe that the Premiership should reduce to 16 teams,
    relegation/promotion to 4 down, 4 up. The clubs should then withdraw
    from Coca Cola/whatever cup. This would then leave the middle of the
    week free for the formation of a European League which can run in
    tandem with the national leagues.
    
    Obviously this leaves the lower division with less income. To counter
    this, the second and third divisions should become regionalised and,
    possibly, part-time thus reducing running costs for the clubs involved.
    
    Stuart

    Nothing too drastic then, eh Stuart !!
    
    
    Ian.

You suggest the formation of a European League (which I will think will happen some day)
and the Premiership reduced to 16 clubs. How many of these would you think would
be involved in the Euro league? Would the others not be interested in competing
in the league cup?

One final question which may be more related to the other topic you entered, how many
organisations are involved in running the English game at the moment, is it te Premiership
clubs, the FA and the FL?

    Ian,
    
    The point is that Englsih football *has* to change its set up. There is
    too much football about at the moment and despite the quality football
    being played by some of the Premiership teams, the performances of
    English teams (and Scottish for that matter, but we're talking about 
    England here) has on the whole been dismal for the last 5 years. Only two 
    teams have won trophies and there have only been 3 finals involving 
    English teams.                                                  
    
    If less football is played, then the theory is that players can spend
    their time improving their technique. 
    
    Once this is done, then the knock on effects should improve the
    National team.
    
    Stuart

    re .4
    
    The European League will replace the Champions Cup. The idea of 4 up, 4
    down is that it will keep all of the teams involved for all season,
    particularly if there are 4 UEFA Cup places up for grabs. That ends the
    usual meaningless end of season games.
    
    As for the League Cup, without a place in Europe for the winners it is
    a lame duck competition. What is the point in entering it? Just for the
    glory of winning? It would be a replacement for the
    Simod-whatever-it-is-called-these-days Cup. A meaningless competition.
    
    Stuart

    re .5
    
    Stuart,
    
    	You mention the fact about Premiership clubs playing too many games
    but, I can remember in the late seventies/early eighties, when teams
    like Liverpool and Nottingham Forest and Everton were playing every
    Saturday and almost every Wednesday. You would have League match, then
    a European tie, then another League match and then a Domestic Cup tie.
    The only difference is that nowadays, the clubs get knocked out of
    Europe sooner than they used to !! 
    
    
    Ian.

>    I believe that the Premiership should reduce to 16 teams,
>    relegation/promotion to 4 down, 4 up. The clubs should then withdraw
>    from Coca Cola/whatever cup. This would then leave the middle of the
>    week free for the formation of a European League which can run in
>    tandem with the national leagues.
    
    Stuart,
    
    I somehow think you might feel a little differently on this matter if
    you supported one of the clubs that would struggle to make the "16" !
    
    Your suggestion of a European league is an interesting one as it only
    involves the PL champions.  You're therefore suggesting that each PL
    club plays 30 games (4 home games less than this season) and 0 Fizzy-Pop
    games (for Utd that's not much of an impact !, but for teams that take
    the competition seriously - like, Arse* - that could represent another
    3 or 4 games lost).  Ok - thats possibly 5/6 home games and revenue
    lost per PL club to accomodate the European League.  The average
    attendance in the PL this season is approaching 28,000 - lets assume a
    cheap ticket price of �10 to make this easy (for me), and that's a
    revenue loss of �1,400,000 per club.
    
    Is that right ?  Is that what you're proposing, or have I misunderstood
    one of your previous notes ?
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    
    Personally, I don't give a monkeys about the Coca Cola Cup. I would 
    rather see Arsenal win the League and do well in a European League. 
    
    As far as lost revenue goes, would you rather pay what you are to see
    on average a dozen good games at OT this season and MU walk over the
    remaining below average teams, or would you rather pay say �5 more to 
    see better quality games throughout the season? In any case, you are 
    taking the PL as an average. These attendances are deflated by teams
    such as Wimbledon, Coventry, QPR, etc., who fail to attract high
    crowds. I'm not syaing that a club should be banished because they
    don't get high levels of support bu each club would have to adjust to 
    its own circumstances. At Highbury this season the average crowd is 38k. 
    The only game that has failed to sell out is the Coca Cola Cup tie against
    Hartlepool and even that got a crowd of 30k. When the building work at
    OT is finished, the capacity is going to be 50k+. That will sell out in
    all likelihood most weeks.
    
    If a team isn't good enough to finish in the top 16 of the Premiership 
    then they are makeweights and would they be missed? Look at the differing
    standards of teams who have come up from the 1st division. Only Forest,
    Middlesbrough & Newcastle are making any impact in the top flight. 
    Leicester, Swindon, Sunderland and other teams who have come up have
    been nothing short of an embarrassment to watch. What is the point of 
    them coming into a division in which they cannot make a valid contribution?
    
    Without the extra games, clubs should invest more time in coaching
    techniques to players and also to bringing in better quality young
    players. 
    
    The underlying question remains: Do you want tosee the current
    standard/level of football in this country maintained or would you prefer 
    to see players with improved techniques playing in this country and the
    beneficial effect this had for thegame as a whole, from the National
    team downwards?
    
    Stuart

    >England here) has on the whole been dismal for the last 5 years. Only two 
    >teams have won trophies and there have only been 3 finals involving 
    >English teams.                                                  
    
    Very poor, Stuart, when compared with the pre-Heysel period, but pretty
    damn good when compared with *any* other country except Italy.
    
    Not that I don't think a few changes would help the game enormously...
    
    Dom

    Only partially relevant to the topic, but a recent survey in Italy
    revealed that a staggering 70 (SEVENTY) per cent of Italians support 
    either Milan, Inter or Juventus. No wonder the smaller clubs are being
    stifled (even more so than in England).
    
    It also puts the old non-Mancunian Man. Utd. supporter thing in
    perspective doesn't it? ;-)
            
    Dom

All of this is just pub-talk isn't it? You can dream about what you'd like to 
see, but:

o	The people interested in 'better football', sucessful national team 
etc are the fans, the media and the FA

o	The power is with the Clubs. The Premier League Clubs do not give a 
toss about the above, they only care about financial success. This means 
staying in the Premier League (for Sky money). None of them is going to vote 
to take that away, so I think we'll stick with 20 and the League Cup will 
wither away.

The argument would get a lot more relevant if Sky refused to pay as much next 
time, and if ITV refused to subsidise the English entry into the Champions 
League. Maybe then the Clubs would have to look towards providing a more
attractive 'product'. 

g

    Grahame,
    
    >All of this is just pub-talk isn't it?
    
    To a certain degree, yes but: 
    
    Fact: UEFA *have* decreed that the Premier division of each country
    	  must be 18 teams or less, otherwise the "League Cup" winners will
    	  not gain entry otherwise. Only the French have dispensation to
    	  ignore this rule and the FA have so far failed in their attempts
    	  to persuade UEFA to give England the same dispensation.
    
    >All of this is just pub-talk isn't it?
    
    Perhaps you'd like to explain what other function this notes conference
    serves?
    
    Stuart  

    
    
    This is a very interesting point that I beleive not only effects the
    English league but should include our Scottish friends.(Sorry
    Wales but currently you could'nt match the investment needed.
    
    I include the Scottish league because it is important that the British 
    teams as a whole are success, which intern should benefit our clubs.
    I would like to see the following changes...
    
    A European League Introduced.
    
    A British League comprising of 16 teams  including Rangers, Celtic 
    and another club (Hearts, Aberdean, Motherwell ??)
    
    A British Premier 1st Division League again comprising of approx 16
    teams.
    
    The Pokey Pola Cup dropped.
    
    The Scottish and FA Cup alighned.
    
    Area leagues introduced  for the other leagues to Qualify for 
    the 1st Division ie North Midland South etc.
    
    All other Clubs to go part time.
    
    Clubs should amalgamate and join forces so that resources could be
    shared as in Ruby League. ie two clubs in one area.
     
   I base my thoughts on several points these being..../
    
    The UK as a whole plays too much footy and as such we will never
    compete on a regular basis with the likes of Italy, Germany, 
    Brazil.
    
    Money speaks.. English footy can only support around six "big" 
    clubs as soon as one club get money Newcastle etc one so 
    called big club will slip back ie Everton.
    
    Rangers in Scotland have spent approx 60 million pounds in the
    past six years on Players etc and can win their respective
    leagues/cups eight times out of ten but as soon as they come up 
    against quality opposition they're outclassed.
    
    We need to adapt to survive our domestic leagues drain our players  
    of the competitive edge when it comes to World competition. Over 
    the next twenty years not only will African footy become a world 
    power but the emergance of Asia and the Far East will come into
    the equation.  
    
   Only success for our National sides will generate the interest 
    and capture the imagination of tomorrows "would be's".
    
    Anyway I've had my say plus three beers lunchtime so the world
    is a wonderful place too live in 8-)
    
    Pj
    
     
    

    Dom,
    
    >Only partially relevant to the topic, but a recent survey in Italy
    >revealed that a staggering 70 (SEVENTY) per cent of Italians
    >support either Milan, Inter or Juventus. No wonder the smaller clubs are
    >being stifled (even more so than in England).
    
    Hasn't this always been a bigger problem in Italy though? The Serie C
    or whatever division it is, is regionalised isn't it? I do honestly
    believe that the only way that the English 2/3 divisions can survive is
    to regionalise. 
          
    Stuart 
    

    re .14
    
    The problem with British Leagues is that it produces pressure to have a
    British team. I am staunchly against this idea, not because I dislike
    the rest of the British Isles (I am fair minded - I hate everybody
    equally) but because each country has its own identity, culturally,
    sporting, whatever. Again, the standards of football are higher in
    England (cue abuse from North of the Border) and really on Rangers,
    Celtic and this season, Aberdeen, can hold their own *comfortably* in
    the Premiership. Anybody else is likely to be drawn into a relegation
    battle. The possibility then arises of a British League with all bar 1
    or 2 of its participants being English and I do not see how that will
    differ from my own viewpoint.
    
    Stuart

     Stuart, (re: a few back)
    
>    As far as lost revenue goes, would you rather pay what you are to see
>    on average a dozen good games at OT this season and MU walk over the
>    remaining below average teams, or would you rather pay say �5 more to 
>    see better quality games throughout the season? 

     There is absolutely no evidence to support your argument that I would 
     watch more quality games at OT than I do now.  What if we had the 16
     team league and Wimbledon stayed up and a team like QPR went down ?
     I would consider a game vs QPR to be generally of a higher quality than a 
     game vs Wimbledon and yet Wimbledon generally perform better over a 
     season than QPR (at least, I believe that's the case !).

     In fact, I may consider a "quality" game to be one in which Utd thrashes
     the opposition - you wouldn't deprive me of such games would you ?

     In any case, the strange thing about being a football fan is that
     you accept the odd dull game, and in fact enjoy the post-match slagging
     about how poor the game was (cf Arsenal vs Inter).

>    The underlying question remains: Do you want tosee the current
>    standard/level of football in this country maintained or would you prefer 
>    to see players with improved techniques playing in this country and the
>    beneficial effect this had for thegame as a whole, from the National
>    team downwards?
    
     Again there is no evidence to support your view.  In fact, the pressure
     of fighting to stay in the PL may cause certain teams to resort to 
     desperate tactics in order to avoid defeat.  In your "ideal", you may
     have the whole league involved in a fight to stay up or qualify for
     Europe. This will not necessarily lead to a better standard of football.
     Increasing the stakes does not automatically lead to an increased
     quality - if anything, the reverse may be true.

     Dave
    

    I think 60 million is pushing it a bit there Mr. James !! Certainly not
    on just players anyway.
    
    I definately think that there has to be a bold move made by the
    football leagues of England and Scotland. Whether it be a British
    Premier league that then has a number of teams put forward for a
    European League, or just the European set-up on its own. The fact is
    that there are a number of clubs that struggle every season within the
    Premiership ie; West Ham, Coventry, Southampton and no matter what sort
    of illustrious history they may have had, the standard of football that
    they are playing now, isn't good enough. There are also the clubs that
    constantly struggle financially ie; Wimbledon, QPR, Bolton. These clubs
    wouldn't have a hope of building a side, let alone a squad, capable of
    taking on the likes of the Juventus's, Barcelona's or Bayern Munich's.
    There are 3, possibly 4 Scottish Teams, that could find the money to stay
    in a British League and they would still struggle in the way of
    attracting players to their club. I mean, who wants to go Abaaaadeen
    anyway ?? Who would watch a match between Hearts and Arsenal. I can't
    imagine very many Arsenal fans travelling up there for an afternoon,
    and likewise for the return fixture. How many ex-pat Hearts fans are
    there ?? Exactly !! There is the talk of Pay-per-View football
    channels, so that you could watch Rangers from the comfort of your 
    armchair, but I wouldn't do it !! I'm already paying a TV licence. Why
    should I pay more money to watch my team play football. You may end up
    with a few glamour ties with a British/European League, eg: Celtic
    versus Man Utd, Rangers v Newcastle, but iI don't think I would watch a
    Hearts v Wimbledon game. Would you ??
    
    
    	Ian. 

    
    Stu,
    
    The subject of your two conferences are interlinked if you let the 
    FA have the main Division and the Leagues the rest you would'nt 
    lose your voting power in Europe, thus not creating a British team.
    
    Re -1 
    
    60 million was stated as players etc meaning players, infastructure
    ground blah blah (remember the three beers l/time !!)
    
    As also mentioned team joining to create stronger units ie Manchester 
    has two teams one is pretty ok the other a bit on the weak side 8-)
    what I was suggesting was get together create a stronger unit.
    
    Remeber Italian teams are owned/Sponsered by the likes of Fiat  
    money no object... Reading by the likes of 210 FM ??!!
    
    Pj   

    Dave,
    
    re .17
    
    There is however a mountain of evidence to show that, in recent years,
    the quality of English football League wise does affect the quality of
    the National side. The English National teams in the last 5 years have
    been nothing short of an embarrassment. That may be down to the
    quality of the manager and his beliefs in the "system" but a major part
    of the problem is that the players have not been good enough. Their
    technical skills when faced with the Italians/Germans have been found
    wanting. Lets face it, Man U, Blackburn and Leeds have failed dismally
    in recent years. Arsenal won the CWC on the back of a solid defence and
    lost a final to a fluke. The upshot is that we do not invest enough
    time or money in a quality youth system to bring skilled youngsters
    into the game.
    
    You will not see immediate results, something which Premiership clubs
    have to have, but for the good of the game you have to invest in the
    future, It is the same as any industry. If you do not invest in the
    future, you will not succeed. Period.
    
    Stuart 

>    There is however a mountain of evidence to show that, in recent years,
>    the quality of English football League wise does affect the quality of
>    the National side. The English National teams in the last 5 years have
>    been nothing short of an embarrassment. That may be down to the
>    quality of the manager and his beliefs in the "system" but a major part
>    of the problem is that the players have not been good enough. Their

    
    Hmm, so I suppose the English national team ruled supreme during the
    70s and 80s when English club sides were dominating European football !
    The argument doesn't work Stuey me old son.  
    
    The PL has become very high-profile with extremely high stakes. 
    Failure normally leads to the manager being dismissed from the club, to
    be replaced by another who will be expected to deliver success within n
    months/years.  Suppose you're a manager who is faced with the pressures
    of not only staying in the PL,  but being expected to win something. 
    The chairman offers you 10m quid to strengthen the squad or to invest
    in a major youth policy which may come to fruition in 10 years time.
    What do you do ?  Spend now, win a trophy and remain employed, or
    invest in the youth policy, win sod all and get the boot. 
    
    To improve the quality of English football, the latter suggestion is
    the one we would all like to see implemented.  In the real world, few
    managers are offered the luxury of long-term employment and hence will
    choose the easy option - buy the talent in (normally from abroad). 
     
    In other words, I fail to see the correlation between a reduction in the 
    number of clubs in the PL plus the removal of the Coca-Cola cup, and the
    improvement of the English national team.  I think the appointment of a
    national team manager with a bit of bleedin' sense would do more for
    the national game than all of the b*ll*cks that's been discussed today. 
                                       

    Dave,
    
    Your argument about lacking youth policy is fundamentally flawed. You
    imply that this all down to the manager. Wrong. It is down to the
    Clubs. They *have* to invest in the future as there is only some much
    money to go round. Sir John Hall at Newcastle has invested as much
    money as most and also recognises this argument. Hence the building of
    "a sporting academy". Failure by other clubs to recognise this is
    tantamount to saying "Well we'll win the League but sod Europe".
    European teams fare better than us technically because they take the
    players at a younger age and teach them basics. English teams need to
    follow this example.  
    
    Stuart	

	Look, the fact that English football was not good enough became
	obvious when England got whopped by Hungary in the 1950s. The continuing
	inadequacy of the national team has nothing to do with the amount of
	football being played, but to the ongoing belief that success can be
	achieved by trying harder with the existing style of play rather than
	adopting a new style.

	I presume the person who was casting stones at Southampton's current
	performance did not have the "pleasure" of watching Man Utd. in the
	Tommy Docherty years.

	Tony