Tony Le Mesmer
But 90% of clubs are losing money. So should we increase divisions to say 30 teams to bridge the losses? Of course not. Youd need a bigger squad for a start, and wages go up.
How much do teams spend on loan wages because the season is too long for their squad to cope?
You need to look at why clubs are losing money. It's
not due to a lack of money coming in.
In the mid 80s, at this level, Reading were pulling 6500 a week, paying £3 each to get in. Our annual turnover must have been about £1 million at most, yet we had a full-time squad. We must get 15 times that amount now. Crowds have doubled across the board since then. Ticket prices have risen several hundred percent. TV money is through the roof. Yes, wages are higher too, but that because our clubs choose to pay that amount.
The problem is that we have a structure that (potentially) rewards financial excess and punishes prudence. If your peers are all paying 10%-20% more than they can afford, then your club also has to overspend as well, or you'll be at a competitive disadvantage. In fact reduced gates and possible relegation due to poor results could see your club lose more than it would have lost by overspending.
Take away the ability for clubs to overspend and you'd also take away the need. I don't understand exactly how the system works, but in Germany it's something like every club is not allowed to get into debt, and if they do go into debt, they have to reduce that debt. They are given a bit of time to do so, but if they fail then they lose their licence and are kicked out the league. That would focus the minds of chairman rather more than the threat of a 10 point penalty several years down the line, possibly after they've sold the club, would.
So , my point is that i dont think reducing the number of teams in each division to say 20 would mean clubs losing more or making less. If you factor in an extended play off system with revenues shared as well, it isnt an issue. A marathon 46 game season with a majority aiming for playoffs that are over in the blink of an eye is just daft to me.
The Football League is just stuck in the 1950s and everyone seems scared to change.
I agree partially. I don't think an extended play-off system would work too well. It's be a bit of a farce. As it is everyone in the top half feels they are in contention until about mid-April anyway, so I don't think you'd gain much. I also really don't like the idea of a team finshing 10th "earning" promotion over a team that finished 20-30 points ahead.
I don't think going down to 20 or 18 teams, with more regionalisation, would be a bad idea though. 46 games is a bit too much of a marathon, and feels like it is those spells where the team is playing twice a week, every week, for a month.
It would also allow players to train better too. I remember Kevin Doyle saying he noticed just how little time there was to train when we got relegated, as players spent so much time travelling, either for international breaks or away games, or just resting before home games, or recovering from games the previous night.
