Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 7:53:45 GMT
Can anyone old enough to remember tell me why the old division 3 south and division 3 north system was abolished? I don't know how true it is but a lot of older Reading fans including my late father have told me that there were several seasons when RFC were heading for promotion to division 2 but used to fade at the end of the season possibly because they would lose money from the extra travelling and less local derbies that promotion would mean. To me more regionalised football makes total sense. 1958 I think - but I'll let you google it. Plymouth came 2nd in Div 3S six years in a row at one point, with just the one promotion place from each Div 3.
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Oct 25, 2019 8:33:59 GMT
Yes and 35% voted to remain whilst 28% couldnt be arsed to vote so to my somewhat feeble mind 37% is classed as a majority. Both of you, sod off back to boring political waffle thread. I've been banned from that thread and my point is more about the mathematics than the B word and I only used the B word as an example because I am too Ill to think of anything else so now the only place I am going to sod off back to is bed.
|
|
|
Post by hongkongstone on Oct 25, 2019 10:09:21 GMT
Did anyone else get the superb "Dead and Bury'd" email blog by Oliver Ash? A Regionalised EFL2 North and EFL2 South made up of current EFL2 and NL, presumably fed by NLS and NLN, is a great idea. He also waves the flag again for non-grass pitches, and has a solid argument on pay caps with French rugby as a great example as how football should be run. What astute owners we have! Agree, but why is the blog not sign-posted on the official MUFC website as previous ones have?
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Oct 25, 2019 10:54:12 GMT
Actually just 37% of the electorate voted for Brexit. Yes and 35% voted to remain whilst 28% couldnt be arsed to vote so to my somewhat feeble mind 37% is classed as a majority. But not of the people, or, indeed, even of the electorate. No other democracy in the world allows a serious constitutional issue like this to be settled on a simple majority vote. Even in this country, you can't call a public service strike without the backing of at least 40% of your electorate. You can f**k the country over and hand the government over to the far-right, with 37%, but you can't call a strike of street cleaners.
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Oct 25, 2019 13:58:45 GMT
Yes and 35% voted to remain whilst 28% couldnt be arsed to vote so to my somewhat feeble mind 37% is classed as a majority. But not of the people, or, indeed, even of the electorate. No other democracy in the world allows a serious constitutional issue like this to be settled on a simple majority vote. Even in this country, you can't call a public service strike without the backing of at least 40% of your electorate. You can f**k the country over and hand the government over to the far-right, with 37%, but you can't call a strike of street cleaners. No further comment as I dont want to upset Dave U and besides I am always wrong you know that well that's what everybody keeps telling me anyway just like my vote my opinion means nothing and counts for even less now I am going back to bed.
|
|
|
Post by shamstone on Oct 25, 2019 14:02:59 GMT
But not of the people, or, indeed, even of the electorate. No other democracy in the world allows a serious constitutional issue like this to be settled on a simple majority vote. Even in this country, you can't call a public service strike without the backing of at least 40% of your electorate. You can f**k the country over and hand the government over to the far-right, with 37%, but you can't call a strike of street cleaners. No further comment as I dont want to upset Dave U and besides I am always wrong you know that well that's what everybody keeps telling me anyway just like my vote my opinion means nothing and counts for even less now I am going back to bed. It’s only your opinion sword. If they get upset then they should stay off the fcuking thing
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Oct 25, 2019 14:54:41 GMT
But not of the people, or, indeed, even of the electorate. No other democracy in the world allows a serious constitutional issue like this to be settled on a simple majority vote. Even in this country, you can't call a public service strike without the backing of at least 40% of your electorate. You can f**k the country over and hand the government over to the far-right, with 37%, but you can't call a strike of street cleaners. No further comment as I dont want to upset Dave U and besides I am always wrong you know that well that's what everybody keeps telling me anyway just like my vote my opinion means nothing and counts for even less now I am going back to bed. You won't upset me, but I've given up on that thread because I'm bored with it now, and I would prefer not to have it resurrected in the middle of other threads in which I am still participating.
|
|
|
Post by hammerstone on Oct 25, 2019 15:10:40 GMT
Haven’t read it yet but does he go on about 3G pitches?
|
|
|
Post by royalstone on Oct 25, 2019 15:45:24 GMT
Can anyone old enough to remember tell me why the old division 3 south and division 3 north system was abolished? I don't know how true it is but a lot of older Reading fans including my late father have told me that there were several seasons when RFC were heading for promotion to division 2 but used to fade at the end of the season possibly because they would lose money from the extra travelling and less local derbies that promotion would mean. To me more regionalised football makes total sense. 1958 I think - but I'll let you google it. Plymouth came 2nd in Div 3S six years in a row at one point, with just the one promotion place from each Div 3. Yes, it was from the 1920s to 1958 like you said but I'm just curious about the reasoning for getting rid of that structure when it suited most clubs at the time. The only possible reason I can think of is that it was unfair for clubs like Notts County/Nott'm Forest who would often play in the South, similar to Oxford C having to play in the conference North when they did. Again, I think Mr Ash is on to something. More regionalised football at the levels just above us makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by shamstone on Oct 25, 2019 15:46:21 GMT
No further comment as I dont want to upset Dave U and besides I am always wrong you know that well that's what everybody keeps telling me anyway just like my vote my opinion means nothing and counts for even less now I am going back to bed. You won't upset me, but I've given up on that thread because I'm bored with it now, and I would prefer not to have it resurrected in the middle of other threads in which I am still participating. That’s the problem, dave. It’s crept into everything
|
|
|
Post by Bernie on Oct 25, 2019 15:48:41 GMT
Which teams would find themselves in North and South, and why would they vote for that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 20:40:09 GMT
Can anyone old enough to remember tell me why the old division 3 south and division 3 north system was abolished? I don't know how true it is but a lot of older Reading fans including my late father have told me that there were several seasons when RFC were heading for promotion to division 2 but used to fade at the end of the season possibly because they would lose money from the extra travelling and less local derbies that promotion would mean. To me more regionalised football makes total sense. 1958 I think - but I'll let you google it. Plymouth came 2nd in Div 3S six years in a row at one point, with just the one promotion place from each Div 3. Another random fact: Did you know that Coventry City are the only team to play in old Divisions one, two, three, three north, three south, four, current leagues two, one, championship and premier league? Almost as many different divisions as us...
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Oct 26, 2019 6:32:22 GMT
In some ways, the National League Premier is the worst place to be. Little in the way of subsidies, albeit a parachute payment if you are relegated from L2. The expense of national travel, plus the virtual necessity of having to go full time. As we know, the standard of football and refereeing isn't much better, plus there are too many journeymen players with little appetite for putting themselves out week after week, though they want the wages, of coutse. Add in the need for ground improvements, extra policing/stewarding etc, and unless a team is using it as a platform to get into the FL proper, then in many ways the NL doesn't have a lot to offer, so a return to regional football at that level is not the worst idea in the world.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Oct 26, 2019 7:57:32 GMT
All the while league 1 and 2 chairmen have any say in this it's not gonna happen. Somehow the pride of being a national club overrides any concerns about sustainability or any vestiges of common sense. Only Accrington's owner exhibits anything approaching the amount of common sense displayed by Oliver.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 9:29:38 GMT
In some ways, the National League Premier is the worst place to be. Little in the way of subsidies, albeit a parachute payment if you are relegated from L2. The expense of national travel, plus the virtual necessity of having to go full time. As we know, the standard of football and refereeing isn't much better, plus there are too many journeymen players with little appetite for putting themselves out week after week, though they want the wages, of coutse. Add in the need for ground improvements, extra policing/stewarding etc, and unless a team is using it as a platform to get into the FL proper, then in many ways the NL doesn't have a lot to offer, so a return to regional football at that level is not the worst idea in the world. Blame it on Jim Thompson...
|
|