adamstag wrote:Well barrow apart to make up the numbers you can’t have promotion but not relegation or visa versa, would be madness.
Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Well barrow apart to make up the numbers you can’t have promotion but not relegation or visa versa, would be madness.
Exactly but you can't promote Barrow without one promotion to league 1 or you would have 25 clubs in league 2 next year. So if no relegations no promotion from the national league either.
Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Well barrow apart to make up the numbers you can’t have promotion but not relegation or visa versa, would be madness.
Exactly but you can't promote Barrow without one promotion to league 1 or you would have 25 clubs in league 2 next year. So if no relegations no promotion from the national league either.
adamstag wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Well barrow apart to make up the numbers you can’t have promotion but not relegation or visa versa, would be madness.
Exactly but you can't promote Barrow without one promotion to league 1 or you would have 25 clubs in league 2 next year. So if no relegations no promotion from the national league either.
Of course you wouldn’t, 4 would go up as normal but only 3 would come down as bury were chucked out, so barrow in essence might not be “promoted” but invited to participate as the highest ranked side out of the EFL. Or however the hell they go about dressing it up
Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Well barrow apart to make up the numbers you can’t have promotion but not relegation or visa versa, would be madness.
Exactly but you can't promote Barrow without one promotion to league 1 or you would have 25 clubs in league 2 next year. So if no relegations no promotion from the national league either.
Of course you wouldn’t, 4 would go up as normal but only 3 would come down as bury were chucked out, so barrow in essence might not be “promoted” but invited to participate as the highest ranked side out of the EFL. Or however the hell they go about dressing it up
I think you missed the bit where I said if there were no promotions or relegations as that would count for league 1 as well. So none up or down from the two leagues and promote Barrow equals 25 in league 2 and 23 in league 1. If you want to balance it out you are back with the problem of deciding how to fairly work out who goes up and down between the leagues.
adamstag wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Well barrow apart to make up the numbers you can’t have promotion but not relegation or visa versa, would be madness.
Exactly but you can't promote Barrow without one promotion to league 1 or you would have 25 clubs in league 2 next year. So if no relegations no promotion from the national league either.
Of course you wouldn’t, 4 would go up as normal but only 3 would come down as bury were chucked out, so barrow in essence might not be “promoted” but invited to participate as the highest ranked side out of the EFL. Or however the hell they go about dressing it up
I think you missed the bit where I said if there were no promotions or relegations as that would count for league 1 as well. So none up or down from the two leagues and promote Barrow equals 25 in league 2 and 23 in league 1. If you want to balance it out you are back with the problem of deciding how to fairly work out who goes up and down between the leagues.
The EFL have already stated that promotion and relegation will happen and the leagues will be completed on PPG or some weird PPG weighted with home and away games.
As such league 1 will have 24 teams next season, barrow will come up in place or bury and Harrogate in place of Stevenage. That’s the gist we got from the latest update from the EFL.
As the FL will return to its compliment of 92 teams - the conference have already stated that only 3 would go down from their division due to the knock on effect of bury.
So there wouldnt be any leagues with 23/25 next season.
adamstag wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:adamstag wrote:Well barrow apart to make up the numbers you can’t have promotion but not relegation or visa versa, would be madness.
Exactly but you can't promote Barrow without one promotion to league 1 or you would have 25 clubs in league 2 next year. So if no relegations no promotion from the national league either.
Of course you wouldn’t, 4 would go up as normal but only 3 would come down as bury were chucked out, so barrow in essence might not be “promoted” but invited to participate as the highest ranked side out of the EFL. Or however the hell they go about dressing it up
I think you missed the bit where I said if there were no promotions or relegations as that would count for league 1 as well. So none up or down from the two leagues and promote Barrow equals 25 in league 2 and 23 in league 1. If you want to balance it out you are back with the problem of deciding how to fairly work out who goes up and down between the leagues.
The EFL have already stated that promotion and relegation will happen and the leagues will be completed on PPG or some weird PPG weighted with home and away games.
As such league 1 will have 24 teams next season, barrow will come up in place or bury and Harrogate in place of Stevenage. That’s the gist we got from the latest update from the EFL.
As the FL will return to its compliment of 92 teams - the conference have already stated that only 3 would go down from their division due to the knock on effect of bury.
So there wouldnt be any leagues with 23/25 next season.
geoffhill wrote:I personally would like both Notts County and Chesterfield to be in our league as they are all local derbies and make for exciting games to go and watch.Not forgetting that they are all good for revenue.Pretty sure if you asked The Radfords they would like them to play.
geoffhill wrote:I personally would like both Notts County and Chesterfield to be in our league as they are all local derbies and make for exciting games to go and watch.Not forgetting that they are all good for revenue.Pretty sure if you asked The Radfords they would like them to play.
adamstag wrote:Looks like the EFL are trying to conveniently shaft them to not have the same issue they had with bury this term.
I agree that they, like all clubs should have to provide evidence on how they plan to fund the season and provide assurances they’ll be no problems - but it stinks a bit that the EFL seem to be trying to shovel them off for a fabricated reason.
oldweststander wrote:adamstag wrote:Looks like the EFL are trying to conveniently shaft them to not have the same issue they had with bury this term.
I agree that they, like all clubs should have to provide evidence on how they plan to fund the season and provide assurances they’ll be no problems - but it stinks a bit that the EFL seem to be trying to shovel them off for a fabricated reason.
What could be less "fabricated" than not paying your players?
oldweststander wrote:adamstag wrote:Looks like the EFL are trying to conveniently shaft them to not have the same issue they had with bury this term.
I agree that they, like all clubs should have to provide evidence on how they plan to fund the season and provide assurances they’ll be no problems - but it stinks a bit that the EFL seem to be trying to shovel them off for a fabricated reason.
What could be less "fabricated" than not paying your players?
cerfjaune wrote:But they obviously want to help Stevenage.
But there again, they’re a southern club, aren’t they!
eggy wrote:oldweststander wrote:adamstag wrote:Looks like the EFL are trying to conveniently shaft them to not have the same issue they had with bury this term.
I agree that they, like all clubs should have to provide evidence on how they plan to fund the season and provide assurances they’ll be no problems - but it stinks a bit that the EFL seem to be trying to shovel them off for a fabricated reason.
What could be less "fabricated" than not paying your players?
Was just about to say exactly the same thing myself. They've been behind on wages all season. There's plenty of time for arguments on what the percentage/cap on wages in the other thread, but not paying wages is the clearest example of living beyond your means.
adamstag wrote:eggy wrote:oldweststander wrote:adamstag wrote:Looks like the EFL are trying to conveniently shaft them to not have the same issue they had with bury this term.
I agree that they, like all clubs should have to provide evidence on how they plan to fund the season and provide assurances they’ll be no problems - but it stinks a bit that the EFL seem to be trying to shovel them off for a fabricated reason.
What could be less "fabricated" than not paying your players?
Was just about to say exactly the same thing myself. They've been behind on wages all season. There's plenty of time for arguments on what the percentage/cap on wages in the other thread, but not paying wages is the clearest example of living beyond your means.
Which is a fair point, but the latest punishment is for them not paying wages in full and on time in may, which they have. Both the club and the supporters trust have provided evidence of so and the supporters club provided a loan to help ensure it happened.
So in essence the EFL have currently charged them for not doing something they have.
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Users browsing this forum: Brough and 133 guests