You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:08 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:34 pm 
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:

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


How much different is the cost of travel in the NPL between Whitby and Darlo when we were in there?

Both teams will need a team coach to get to most games except for Darlo the trips aren't quite as long. The difference is mostly in time and maybe what £15-20 petrol? Most coaches are hired by the day so its usually a very similar cost whether your away game is Farsley Celtic or Marine.

The only edge say Stalybridge Celtic has is that they'd have maybe 2-3 away games where players would probably travel direct because they are so close. The overall saving isn't particularly big though when compared to a clubs overall costs including wages.

Yes these travel costs are quite a bit higher than playing in the NL but on the whole the travel budgets are probably closer than youd imagine. The problem in the North-East is that players can make a lot of money playing in the NL and 'being home for tea-time' which obviously makes life much harder for clubs with ambition in the region. This doesn't happen with any regularity in the NW/NE Counties.

As for the bold bit, the irony is hilarious.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 66
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
Opened the non league paper and there was a very odd article about morpeth. The manager said they are not ready for promotion but knows they have to take it. Im guessing if it was not compulsery they would have declined

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:17 am
Posts: 165
Location: Manchester
Team Supported: Darlington
shildonlad wrote:
Opened the non league paper and there was a very odd article about morpeth. The manager said they are not ready for promotion but knows they have to take it. Im guessing if it was not compulsery they would have declined

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


Can't be ready after winning the Vase and then the NL in back to back seasons :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 10779
Team Supported: Darlington
I'd expect some very strange results in the NL before the end of the season, as clubs attempt the spectre of promotion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3899
Team Supported: Darlington
liddle_4_ever wrote:
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.


Huzzah, you've given ground.

Nevertheless, it's still a poor idea with major flaws that would leave the majority of clubs worse off. Sadly your own insecurity and lack of intelligence means you won't accept that.

liddle_4_ever wrote:
I don't make any assumption for how clubs are funded.


Nope, you don't make any acknowledgement or reference to it at all. Why? Because it blows apart your insistence it would make the system fairer. You're hiding from the biggest flaw in your idea. Rich remote sides would play the system to get an advantage.

liddle_4_ever wrote:
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.


This is nothing like the tax system. The whole basis for the league system is competition - the opposite to the shared social responsibilities of running public services that make a tax system necessary.

Your idea undermines this idea of competition as it nobbles poorer metropolitan sides in central locations and would drive some out of business. Once again, you're persisting with the myth that less remote clubs are automatically well off. That's not the case at all.

liddle_4_ever wrote:
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.


Hold on, I thought you said your idea would have a positive impact? Now you're conceding it might make more clubs worse off. Why should clubs accept a system which would make a majority of them worse off?

Forget your nonsense about sharing the burden. Fundamentally, clubs would still be losing out, making things more difficult for them. If 15 clubs in a division are worse off and 5 clubs are better off, that is a bad and unfair system.

If more clubs are worse off, then the system is worthless.

liddle_4_ever wrote:
Ps I won't resort to petty insults, especially as I know how my intellect compares to most.

Civility is overrated. You're very dim so won't accept or even address flaws in your ideas. It's fundamentally flawed because you're assuming remote clubs are poor and metropolitan clubs are not. This is patently nonsense. It's embarrassing you need this pointing out - even more so that you won't concede it. Until you do, you won't convince anyone.

P.S. when you condescend and belittle people, as you have done, you can't attempt to claim the moral high ground.



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: Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 66
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
Darlo_Manc wrote:
shildonlad wrote:
Opened the non league paper and there was a very odd article about morpeth. The manager said they are not ready for promotion but knows they have to take it. Im guessing if it was not compulsery they would have declined

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


Can't be ready after winning the Vase and then the NL in back to back seasons [emoji38]
Exactly. How many times do they need to win the vase and league. Whitley bay had the same excuses

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 66
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
Darlo_Pete wrote:
I'd expect some very strange results in the NL before the end of the season, as clubs attempt the spectre of promotion.
Wouls not suprise me. Mind morpeth would nees to loose more a less every game to avoid promotion

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 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