You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:37 am View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:17 am
Posts: 165
Location: Manchester
Team Supported: Darlington
polam wrote:
Darlo_Manc wrote:
dickdarlington wrote:
So, they’re adding a third southern division? How’s that going to help the north south feeds into the national leagues???


No, they're adding a midlands (central) league at step 3. The wording is mis-leading as its the Southern Premier League who'll be running the league but it'll cover those clubs that tend to be part of the NPL when they clearly aren't Northern (Hednesford, Halesowen etc) along with other clubs who keep flip-flopping between NPL and SPL. Its more:

EvoStik NPL
Midlands League (run by the Southern Premier League)
EvoStik Southern Premier (covers South West)
Ryman Premier (covers South East)

The below is a reasonable projection of how it would look at Step 3.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1inu6blXlaCuykULnRxHPFLMcCnAPU1NtmlM27JJ9nFE/edit#gid=0



So sourthern based fans lose the trip to Brackley but gain Solihull (if they go down) and King's Lynn (if they go up). Gloucester will stay in the south as they were promised they would not have to move back north for three years unless they wanted to. It looks as though there will be less travelling next season with three of the four teams to be relegated from the National League likely to be 'northern'. However depending on final placings it's not inconceivable that Hereford will be in NLN next season.


The best way to improve things is to ring fence the four leagues imo. So if you're classed as Northern then you can't be moved to the Midlands etc.

When a team is reprieved this season due to Ossett Albion and Ossett Town merging it should be a team from NPL Division One not the team with the highest PPG from all of step four. Otherwise you're losing one Northern team at step four to the benefit of a Southern team which just makes things more unbalanced.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 93
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
Pity I'm banned on non league zone so can't comment on this on there. The northern leagues part in the pyramid has been a joke for years. Clubs years ago have complained about huge costs of travel, Mike Amos was often on about it with the fa constantly in the firing line. However for once I don't blame the fa for this problem. It seems there was an old guard at clubs and on the league committee well before Mike Amos come onboard with little ambition. When the northern premier added a 1st Division there was not masses of applicants, only bishop and Whitley bay I believe. Since the league finally joined the pyramid years too late i'm sure only 6 teams have been promoted. The fa have given the league 2 chances for en mass promotions which they never really took. Not sure if the fa could have done much more except make promotions mandatory during previous restructures. Mike amos did propose a step 4 tweed to humber league, seemed a good idea and may cover that area as more teams get promoted but how the hell would that have worked, masses of teams from Yorkshire and north Midlands would have had to be put in the league to make up the numbers due to the northern leagues lack of interest and the travel problem stays the same. If likes Morpeth do throw games, let ground go to rack and ruin etc then they should be demoted to northern league 2nd Division or Wearside level

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4061
Team Supported: Darlington
Spot on shildonlad. If you go through the list of champions, the number of times the Northern League failed to promote anyone was unreal.

Since Durham in 07/08, only us, Spennymoor and South Shields have been promoted. That's at least six seasons where a team hasn't been promoted.

No wonder there's been issues. If 10 sides go up across 10 seasons, even if just a handful stay up, that still reduces the travel costs you'd otherwise pay.

And if you end up having to cut your cloth accordingly, but get relegated, well that's what's supposed to happen.

But Amos and his cabal actively encouraged sides to prioritise the Vase over promotion, so they could have a back-slapping day out each season, where they all told each other how good their own division was.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:17 am
Posts: 165
Location: Manchester
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
Spot on shildonlad. If you go through the list of champions, the number of times the Northern League failed to promote anyone was unreal.

Since Durham in 07/08, only us, Spennymoor and South Shields have been promoted. That's at least six seasons where a team hasn't been promoted.

No wonder there's been issues. If 10 sides go up across 10 seasons, even if just a handful stay up, that still reduces the travel costs you'd otherwise pay.

And if you end up having to cut your cloth accordingly, but get relegated, well that's what's supposed to happen.

But Amos and his cabal actively encouraged sides to prioritise the Vase over promotion, so they could have a back-slapping day out each season, where they all told each other how good their own division was.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


Absolutely spot on. Created their own problem and then used it as propaganda as to why going up is bad.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Posts: 2230
Team Supported: Darlington
To be honest, if they just wanted to be this insular, backward entity that's effectively not part of the wider pyramid system, then maybe they shouldn't have been allowed to take part in the wider system's national cup competition. Would have helped focus minds.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 93
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
Darlogramps wrote:
Spot on shildonlad. If you go through the list of champions, the number of times the Northern League failed to promote anyone was unreal.

Since Durham in 07/08, only us, Spennymoor and South Shields have been promoted. That's at least six seasons where a team hasn't been promoted.

No wonder there's been issues. If 10 sides go up across 10 seasons, even if just a handful stay up, that still reduces the travel costs you'd otherwise pay.

And if you end up having to cut your cloth accordingly, but get relegated, well that's what's supposed to happen.

But Amos and his cabal actively encouraged sides to prioritise the Vase over promotion, so they could have a back-slapping day out each season, where they all told each other how good their own division was.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
There was 10 seasons of no promotion at all (1997/1998-2006/2007) during which times likes of whitley bay and bedlington dominated and look at them now

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 93
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
Darlo_Manc wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Spot on shildonlad. If you go through the list of champions, the number of times the Northern League failed to promote anyone was unreal.

Since Durham in 07/08, only us, Spennymoor and South Shields have been promoted. That's at least six seasons where a team hasn't been promoted.

No wonder there's been issues. If 10 sides go up across 10 seasons, even if just a handful stay up, that still reduces the travel costs you'd otherwise pay.

And if you end up having to cut your cloth accordingly, but get relegated, well that's what's supposed to happen.

But Amos and his cabal actively encouraged sides to prioritise the Vase over promotion, so they could have a back-slapping day out each season, where they all told each other how good their own division was.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


Absolutely spot on. Created their own problem and then used it as propaganda as to why going up is bad.
Mike amos sure used it as propaganda. Not sure what stance is now

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 93
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
LoidLucan wrote:
To be honest, if they just wanted to be this insular, backward entity that's effectively not part of the wider pyramid system, then maybe they shouldn't have been allowed to take part in the wider system's national cup competition. Would have helped focus minds.
Bar a couple of clubs non would care if there were getting thrown out the pyramid mind if they were getting chucked out of the vase the stance on promotion would soon change

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 858
Location: Scotland
Team Supported: Darlo
I know people have stated that travel costs aren't the main concern, but shouldn't the FA have something in place to subsidise travel for clubs at £X/mile. That way each club is on a more even footing, increasing fairness within out game.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Posts: 1108
Team Supported: Darlington
The Northern League’s lack of promotions over the past 25 years is the biggest factor in the underrepresentation of North East football in the pyramid, which in turn has negatively impacted investment in grassroots football.

If the Northern League clubs had been promoted en masse, like the North West Counties, there wouldn’t be a travelling issue.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 10974
Team Supported: Darlington
If you started subsidising NL clubs that got promoted for their travel expenses, then everybody would want money for travelling, were would it end?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4061
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:
I know people have stated that travel costs aren't the main concern, but shouldn't the FA have something in place to subsidise travel for clubs at £X/mile. That way each club is on a more even footing, increasing fairness within out game.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


So that would benefit more remote clubs like, for example Morpeth.

Morpeth shell out loads on their wage bill - it's one of the biggest in the division.

Why should they get their travel subsidised, allowing them carry on spending beyond their means on the playing budget?

I'm also against the FA getting involved and giving some clubs a leg up. It's not the FA's job.

As said previously, it's nothing to do with travel. It's an insular division that's favoured the Vase over promotion repeatedly, causing these problems. It's all self-inflicted.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 858
Location: Scotland
Team Supported: Darlo
I never said anything about the NL. All clubs travel costs being subsidised would make it a more even playing field. The costs of Carlise, for example, fulfilling their contract with the FA is higher than an equivalent club in the Midlands so why should they get the same remuneration?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4061
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:
I never said anything about the NL. All clubs travel costs being subsidised would make it a more even playing field. The costs of Carlise, for example, fulfilling their contract with the FA is higher than an equivalent club in the Midlands so why should they get the same remuneration?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


No it wouldn't make it more of a level playing field. The NL is one example where we've highlighted this but you've neatly sidestepped the issue.

The big flaw you've made is you're assuming all clubs are run and funded in the same way and to a similar level. They're not. Why should Man City get subsidised in the same way as Morpeth or Exeter or Carlisle? (You said ALL clubs).

Swansea and Ipswich are comparatively remote, yet are owned by millionaires. Why do they need to be subsidised?

Subsidising EFL clubs means those already bankrolled to a high level will also benefit more as they can now invest even more in the playing budget as their travel costs are at least partially covered. There are plenty of teams who can comfortably afford their own travelling costs so shouldn't interventionist support.

It would further entrench existing differences rather than make things more competitive.

I'd also like to know how you avoid bankrupting the FA, given you want them to start giving free money to thousands of teams across the country.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:38 am
Posts: 27
Team Supported: Darlington
Interesting comments regarding the NL and lack of ambition of it's constituent clubs preferring a day trip to Wembley in the Vase. Whilst I agree there is some truth in this view, it remains a fact that relatively few clubs in the NL will make it all the way to Wembley and it certainly doesn't apply to my local club Stockton Town. They are a forward thinking club having risen from the Teesside League, through the Wearside League and now sit comfortably in mid table of the NL Div one.

Most people I know view their Vase success as an incredible bonus and another chapter in their successful but brief history as a club. It would be great to see them lift the cup at Wembley on 20th May and hopefully kick on next season and try to mount another promotion push.

UTA as they say in Stockton!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 858
Location: Scotland
Team Supported: Darlo
Darlogramps wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:
I never said anything about the NL. All clubs travel costs being subsidised would make it a more even playing field. The costs of Carlise, for example, fulfilling their contract with the FA is higher than an equivalent club in the Midlands so why should they get the same remuneration?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


No it wouldn't make it more of a level playing field. The NL is one example where we've highlighted this but you've neatly sidestepped the issue.

The big flaw you've made is you're assuming all clubs are run and funded in the same way and to a similar level. They're not. Why should Man City get subsidised in the same way as Morpeth or Exeter or Carlisle? (You said ALL clubs).

Swansea and Ipswich are comparatively remote, yet are owned by millionaires. Why do they need to be subsidised?

Subsidising EFL clubs means those already bankrolled to a high level will also benefit more as they can now invest even more in the playing budget as their travel costs are at least partially covered. There are plenty of teams who can comfortably afford their own travelling costs so shouldn't interventionist support.

It would further entrench existing differences rather than make things more competitive.

I'd also like to know how you avoid bankrupting the FA, given you want them to start giving free money to thousands of teams across the country.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


I've not "sidestepped the issue". There is no issue. The NL, in a national sport, doesn't matter, the bigger picture does.

The FA giving money to clubs to help cover their travel costs, which vary club to club because of their location relative to other teams in the league, would undoubtedly result in a fairer funded sport. Think about it, if you have a number of local teams and then 1 a distance away, the teams near to each other have both reduced travel costs and increased ticket sales (more away fans, and possibly more home fans due to local rivalries) compared with the distant team, over time, with all else being equal, this results in the distant team being pushed out due to not having the financial clout to compete.

Using the excuse that some teams have rich benefactors is again irrelevant, throw, let's say, a 5 figure sum towards a Sheikh and he probably wouldn't bend over to pick it up. It would have no conceivable impact on those teams.

As for not bankrupting the FA, that's easy and I'm surprised you need me to spell it out to you.
If total current funding given out is X, total travel subsidiary is Y, and new payout to applicable clubs is Z, then let X=Y+Z. This would probably make sense to be separated on a league by league basis.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20959
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:
If total current funding given out is X, total travel subsidiary is Y, and new payout to applicable clubs is Z, then let X=Y+Z. This would probably make sense to be separated on a league by league basis.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


I don't understand your equation.

At the moment there is no Y, and if there was, where would it come from?

Even if there is a Y, how can Y+Z = X? You can't add applicable clubs to a total travel subsidiary, you must divide the total subsidiary between applicable clubs.

Therefore X=Y/Z

Except X you say is total funding given out, whilst Y is only a part of X, and Z is multiple fractions of Y.

So X doesn't = Y/Z either.

Where is Y coming from? From X? If it does, then X has Y/Z taken away from it to leave A, which is a smaller amount of funding.

The only way Y could be of benefit is if it is provided as additional funding to clubs on top of the already existing X.

_________________
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017


Last edited by Quakerz on Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:17 am
Posts: 165
Location: Manchester
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:
I never said anything about the NL. All clubs travel costs being subsidised would make it a more even playing field. The costs of Carlise, for example, fulfilling their contract with the FA is higher than an equivalent club in the Midlands so why should they get the same remuneration?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


No it wouldn't make it more of a level playing field. The NL is one example where we've highlighted this but you've neatly sidestepped the issue.

The big flaw you've made is you're assuming all clubs are run and funded in the same way and to a similar level. They're not. Why should Man City get subsidised in the same way as Morpeth or Exeter or Carlisle? (You said ALL clubs).

Swansea and Ipswich are comparatively remote, yet are owned by millionaires. Why do they need to be subsidised?

Subsidising EFL clubs means those already bankrolled to a high level will also benefit more as they can now invest even more in the playing budget as their travel costs are at least partially covered. There are plenty of teams who can comfortably afford their own travelling costs so shouldn't interventionist support.

It would further entrench existing differences rather than make things more competitive.

I'd also like to know how you avoid bankrupting the FA, given you want them to start giving free money to thousands of teams across the country.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


I've not "sidestepped the issue". There is no issue. The NL, in a national sport, doesn't matter, the bigger picture does.

The FA giving money to clubs to help cover their travel costs, which vary club to club because of their location relative to other teams in the league, would undoubtedly result in a fairer funded sport. Think about it, if you have a number of local teams and then 1 a distance away, the teams near to each other have both reduced travel costs and increased ticket sales (more away fans, and possibly more home fans due to local rivalries) compared with the distant team, over time, with all else being equal, this results in the distant team being pushed out due to not having the financial clout to compete.

Using the excuse that some teams have rich benefactors is again irrelevant, throw, let's say, a 5 figure sum towards a Sheikh and he probably wouldn't bend over to pick it up. It would have no conceivable impact on those teams.

As for not bankrupting the FA, that's easy and I'm surprised you need me to spell it out to you.
If total current funding given out is X, total travel subsidiary is Y, and new payout to applicable clubs is Z, then let X=Y+Z. This would probably make sense to be separated on a league by league basis.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Every club has its challenges, clubs like Ashton Utd have a tough time because they have so many clubs on their doorstep. Great for travel costs but not for attracting potential new fans when they've got about 10 non-league clubs within a few miles competing for numbers.

Some clubs have to rent their ground so should they get a subsidy for the costs they might lose in rent and not having facilities to generate more money to make non-league football fairer?

Realistically the money isn't there because the FA is overstretched in investing in grassroots football for kids and amateur clubs. If the FA has to pay out tangible amounts to clubs for travel then you know where it's going to come from and it's not going to be the England team or Wembley.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4061
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:
I've not "sidestepped the issue". There is no issue. The NL, in a national sport, doesn't matter, the bigger picture does.


Sorry, this just reads that you're shoving your fingers in your ears saying "La,la, la, la,la."

Specific examples will matter. I've pointed out flaws in your one-size fits all idea at a specific level. You can't just say it doesn't matter because it's the Northern League. Of course it matters, these are the clubs who'll be impacted.

Quote:
The FA giving money to clubs to help cover their travel costs, which vary club to club because of their location relative to other teams in the league, would undoubtedly result in a fairer funded sport. Think about it, if you have a number of local teams and then 1 a distance away, the teams near to each other have both reduced travel costs and increased ticket sales (more away fans, and possibly more home fans due to local rivalries) compared with the distant team, over time, with all else being equal, this results in the distant team being pushed out due to not having the financial clout to compete.


Such a simplistic argument that again presumes all sides are funded to the same level, in the same way. That simply doesn't happen. It's far more nuanced. Again I'll use the example of Morpeth in the Northern League. They are remote but have a rich benefactor, and are better funded than a lot of the teams in the division. Blyth, Darlington and Spennymoor are also fairly remote in terms of the NLN (and NPL and NLP Div 1 when we were there) but have some of the best attendances in the league. And then Spennymoor are funded completely differently to Darlington.

You're trying to apply a one size fits all policy when it simply doesn't work like that.

Quote:
Using the excuse that some teams have rich benefactors is again irrelevant, throw, let's say, a 5 figure sum towards a Sheikh and he probably wouldn't bend over to pick it up. It would have no conceivable impact on those teams.


Nonsense. Say Salford get promoted this season. If the FA go to them and say "We'll subsidise your travel costs" are they really going to say no when they've got trips to Dover or Torquay to fund? Salford have rich benefactors who can easily cover their existing costs, but if the FA offer to subsidise it, they'll simply accept and reinvest the funds they've saved elsewhere, thus entrenching the current differences, rather than levelling the playing field.

It's human nature. If you're paying for something and someone offers to pay for it instead, most of the time you'll accept, particularly in a competitive environment where you want any way to get an advantage.

liddle_4_ever wrote:
As for not bankrupting the FA, that's easy and I'm surprised you need me to spell it out to you.
If total current funding given out is X, total travel subsidiary is Y, and new payout to applicable clubs is Z, then let X=Y+Z. This would probably make sense to be separated on a league by league basis.


Sorry, but your equation makes no sense whatsoever, for the reasons Quakerz has outlined. There currently isn't a "Y".

Nor have you explained where the new money to fund the travel subsidy is coming from. So for all you've tried to be condescending, actually you've not explained anything at all.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 858
Location: Scotland
Team Supported: Darlo
Quakerz wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:
If total current funding given out is X, total travel subsidiary is Y, and new payout to applicable clubs is Z, then let X=Y+Z. This would probably make sense to be separated on a league by league basis.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


I don't understand your equation.

At the moment there is no Y, and if there was, where would it come from?

Even if there is a Y, how can Y+Z = X? You can't add applicable clubs to a total travel subsidiary, you must divide the total subsidiary between applicable clubs.

Therefore X=Y/Z

Except X you say is total funding given out, whilst Y is only a part of X, and Z is multiple fractions of Y.

So X doesn't = Y/Z either.

Where is Y coming from? From X? If it does, then X has Y/Z taken away from it to leave A, which is a smaller amount of funding.

The only way Y could be of benefit is if it is provided as additional funding to clubs on top of the already existing X.


Try reading it again.
New payout to applicable clubs is Z, not number of clubs.

To use it in an example:
Total amount given to clubs in a league is £100,000, (X=100,000). Under a new agreement £20,000 is given to clubs in total for the travel subsidiary, some clubs would get thousands, others would get hundred, depending on their travel obligation, but the total is £20,000, (Y=20,000). Therefore £80,000 is the new total given to clubs in the league at an even share.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4061
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:

To use it in an example:
Total amount given to clubs in a league is £100,000, (X=100,000). Under a new agreement £20,000 is given to clubs in total for the travel subsidiary, some clubs would get thousands, others would get hundred, depending on their travel obligation, but the total is £20,000, (Y=20,000). Therefore £80,000 is the new total given to clubs in the league at an even share.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Basically you'd fund the travel subsidiary by taking it from existing funds given to clubs by their respective leagues? (Hence 100k - 20k = 80k)
However you'd redistribute the 20k (or Y) in favour of more remote clubs with higher travelling costs.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 858
Location: Scotland
Team Supported: Darlo
Darlogramps wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:

To use it in an example:
Total amount given to clubs in a league is £100,000, (X=100,000). Under a new agreement £20,000 is given to clubs in total for the travel subsidiary, some clubs would get thousands, others would get hundred, depending on their travel obligation, but the total is £20,000, (Y=20,000). Therefore £80,000 is the new total given to clubs in the league at an even share.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Basically you'd fund the travel subsidiary by taking it from existing funds given to clubs by their respective leagues? (Hence 100k - 20k = 80k)
However you'd redistribute the 20k (or Y) in favour of more remote clubs with higher travelling costs.
Yes

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 93
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
I dont get morpeths thinking they've won the vase already. If they got grants for travel they would keep hoying it on wages which i presume must be big as they have a few ex pros with them. I do think the fa should give grants for ground improvements but aint this in place already. Must say last time i was at marske there ground was piss poor. Would not suprise me if they do nowt to it so they are demoted

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20959
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:

To use it in an example:
Total amount given to clubs in a league is £100,000, (X=100,000). Under a new agreement £20,000 is given to clubs in total for the travel subsidiary, some clubs would get thousands, others would get hundred, depending on their travel obligation, but the total is £20,000, (Y=20,000). Therefore £80,000 is the new total given to clubs in the league at an even share.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Basically you'd fund the travel subsidiary by taking it from existing funds given to clubs by their respective leagues? (Hence 100k - 20k = 80k)
However you'd redistribute the 20k (or Y) in favour of more remote clubs with higher travelling costs.
Yes

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


I knew what you were trying to suggest from the start - ie take money from the existing funding and use it to subsidise travel, but the problem there is that others will then be worse off and overall there is no net gain.

That, and the fact that your equation X=Y+Z does not make sense or resemble what you mean.

_________________
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 858
Location: Scotland
Team Supported: Darlo
Quakerz wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:

To use it in an example:
Total amount given to clubs in a league is £100,000, (X=100,000). Under a new agreement £20,000 is given to clubs in total for the travel subsidiary, some clubs would get thousands, others would get hundred, depending on their travel obligation, but the total is £20,000, (Y=20,000). Therefore £80,000 is the new total given to clubs in the league at an even share.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Basically you'd fund the travel subsidiary by taking it from existing funds given to clubs by their respective leagues? (Hence 100k - 20k = 80k)
However you'd redistribute the 20k (or Y) in favour of more remote clubs with higher travelling costs.
Yes

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


I knew what you were trying to suggest from the start - ie take money from the existing funding and use it to subsidise travel, but the problem there is that others will then be worse off and overall there is no net gain.

That, and the fact that your equation X=Y+Z does not make sense or resemble what you mean.


Well unless you can magic up some extra cash the only way of increasing fairness is changing the distribution of the current funding which has to result in some being better off and others being worse off than they currently are. There is no financial net gain but the increase in fairness and ability for clubs to move up through the league with reduced financial risk would add up to a gain for the sport.

There's nothing wrong with my XYZ example. It's ok Quakerz, you can admit you were wrong.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:38 am
Posts: 378
Team Supported: Darlington
shildonlad wrote:
Must say last time i was at marske there ground was piss poor. Would not suprise me if they do nowt to it so they are demoted


They've got 14 games to play in 28 days so the state of the ground might be irrelevant come May. They're doing Sat/Tues/Th or Sat/Mon/Weds for the rest of the season. They'll be knackered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4061
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:

Well unless you can magic up some extra cash the only way of increasing fairness is changing the distribution of the current funding which has to result in some being better off and others being worse off than they currently are. There is no financial net gain but the increase in fairness and ability for clubs to move up through the league with reduced financial risk would add up to a gain for the sport.

There's nothing wrong with my XYZ example. It's ok Quakerz, you can admit you were wrong.



Bless, you're too thick to acknowledge the holes in your own ideas.

Once again, you continue to assume all clubs are funded to the same level, which they're not. It is not the case that remote clubs are poor and clubs in populated areas are rich because of geography.

Moreover, I don't see how taking money away from clubs increases fairness. Your poorly thought out idea would kill off a host of less well-off metropolitan clubs.

I think any plan which takes money away from clubs that need it most is a crackpot one and should be discarded.

One final flaw, surely only remote clubs would actually better off from this. Given the majority of clubs are from urban areas (the facts are all there on the FA's website), more clubs would be worse off, with only a handful better off.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20959
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:
Quakerz wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:

There's nothing wrong with my XYZ example. It's ok Quakerz, you can admit you were wrong.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


There's everything wrong with the equation, it's nonsense. Send it to a mathematician if you like. :roll:

Anyhow, there is no point having a debate over the equation - the more important thing is not that, but what you are saying will solve the travel problem.

If you take money out of existing funding, then although you might have a small pot to share around the most needy clubs for travelling, it means everyone has less funding.

The only way to give needy clubs a travel subsidy and keep the same level of usual funding for everyone, so that no one loses out - is of course for the FA to increase funding. That would obviously beg the question of where that extra money is coming from.

Your solution of taking it from current funding, or in other words re-distributing the current funds, would cause other clubs to lose out, so it doesn't stand up as a solution really.

_________________
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 858
Location: Scotland
Team Supported: Darlo
Darlogramps wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:

Well unless you can magic up some extra cash the only way of increasing fairness is changing the distribution of the current funding which has to result in some being better off and others being worse off than they currently are. There is no financial net gain but the increase in fairness and ability for clubs to move up through the league with reduced financial risk would add up to a gain for the sport.

There's nothing wrong with my XYZ example. It's ok Quakerz, you can admit you were wrong.



Bless, you're too thick to acknowledge the holes in your own ideas.

Once again, you continue to assume all clubs are funded to the same level, which they're not. It is not the case that remote clubs are poor and clubs in populated areas are rich because of geography.

Moreover, I don't see how taking money away from clubs increases fairness. Your poorly thought out idea would kill off a host of less well-off metropolitan clubs.

I think any plan which takes money away from clubs that need it most is a crackpot one and should be discarded.

One final flaw, surely only remote clubs would actually better off from this. Given the majority of clubs are from urban areas (the facts are all there on the FA's website), more clubs would be worse off, with only a handful better off.


I'm fully aware it's not a perfect solution, there isn't a silver bullet for this issue, but my idea is achievable and would have a positive impact.

I don't make any assumption for how clubs are funded. If that was taken into account for FA funding it would be a nightmare to manage and people would play the system.

"Moreover, I don't see how taking money away from clubs increases fairness."
Do you agree that a progressive taxation system, where those who earn the most pay a higher rate of tax, increases fairness? This works in a similar way, some are better off, others would be worse off, but overall fairness is increased.

"I think any plan which takes money away from clubs that need it most is a crackpot one and should be discarded."
I agree that an idea that takes money away from those who need it most would be a poor idea. My idea does the opposite, and gives extra money to those who's expenses associated with meeting their match obligations are higher.

"One final flaw, surely only remote clubs would actually better off from this."
Yes, that is the idea.

"Given the majority of clubs are from urban areas (the facts are all there on the FA's website), more clubs would be worse off, with only a handful better off."
It's not about urban or rural, it's about distance (yes there may be a correlation, before you jump in with that). A club could be in a city but have major travel costs (eg Exeter) where as a rural club in say the Midlands could have much shorter distances to travel over the season. Whether most would be better off of worse off would depend on the league each season. If most were to be worse off the load of supporting the more distant clubs would be spread across more clubs reducing the individual burden.

Ps I won't resort to petty insults, especially as I know how my intellect compares to most.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Posts: 858
Location: Scotland
Team Supported: Darlo
Quakerz wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:
Quakerz wrote:
liddle_4_ever wrote:

There's nothing wrong with my XYZ example. It's ok Quakerz, you can admit you were wrong.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


There's everything wrong with the equation, it's nonsense. Send it to a mathematician if you like. :roll:

Anyhow, there is no point having a debate over the equation - the more important thing is not that, but what you are saying will solve the travel problem.

If you take money out of existing funding, then although you might have a small pot to share around the most needy clubs for travelling, it means everyone has less funding.

The only way to give needy clubs a travel subsidy and keep the same level of usual funding for everyone, so that no one loses out - is of course for the FA to increase funding. That would obviously beg the question of where that extra money is coming from.

Your solution of taking it from current funding, or in other words re-distributing the current funds, would cause other clubs to lose out, so it doesn't stand up as a solution really.


As a mathematician I can confirm there's nothing wrong with the equation, just your interpretation of it. Even someone with rudimentary knowledge of maths knows to perform dimensional analysis which won't disprove my basic equation (£=£+£).

"If you take money out of existing funding, then although you might have a small pot to share around the most needy clubs for travelling, it means everyone has less funding."
No it doesn't! Some clubs get more, others will get less. The average amount given to each club would still be the same (it would be X/number of clubs in the league).

"The only way to give needy clubs a travel subsidy and keep the same level of usual funding for everyone, so that no one loses out - is of course for the FA to increase funding. That would obviously beg the question of where that extra money is coming from."
Obviously to allow the clubs with the shortest distances to travel to keep the same paynent that they currently recieve AND give a donation towards travel costs funding would need to be increased, but then the argument would come about should that increase be shared equally amongst all clubs in the league or skewed towards those with the biggest distances to travel. So if there was to be an increase in funding from the FA do you think it would be best spread evenly or to help those with the biggest travel costs?

"Your solution of taking it from current funding, or in other words re-distributing the current funds, would cause other clubs to lose out, so it doesn't stand up as a solution really."
I understand that, as some clubs would be worse off, it would face some opposition. The idea of redistributing current funding was so that the idea isn't dependant on the FA increasing their payments. I'd also like to think some of the clubs who would be slightly worse off by this idea would see the bigger picture and not be against it. Taking it back to the tax example, when I was a higher rate tax payer, yes it hurt to see how much had been taken off me each month, but I knew it was a better solution (not the best solution) than a flat rate of tax where everyone shares the same burden.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

_________________
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group