Ayrshire league changes

[Graham3179]

You've misread part of the post.

 

The first point "If you have six (not three as posted by others) poor games at the start of the season NOW, you'll spend the rest of the season fighting relegation and potentially losing players." This is the situation now.

 

The point being, a poor start to the season in future (e.g. 6 games) means you still have something to play for as you can win the league you're in.

[The Goalie123]

Will a vote take place Thursday by members to ratify this or is it a discussion to iron out concerns ?

[eyeswideopen15]

Apologies for the length of the post... and this is only my opinion, and playing devil's advocate to an extent. And being argumentative, because i enjoy that too.

I'm a strong advocate of the proposal and have seen it work in another league for a number of years, who have been very helpful and even attended a meeting to discuss and answer questions. They shared some downfalls too, which is why seeding has been added to the proposal as they don't currently use that.

The current system is not balanced, 14 teams in first division and 8 in third isn't sustainable. Too many games in the first and teams in the third playing each other 3 times isn't fair. "Competition between 4/5 teams in the first has been strong this year", what about the other 42 teams??

"To punish teams in this division...would be in very poor taste", but moving some of them to a lower league would be ok, or being unfair to the clubs in 2nd and 3rd division is ok?

This proposal would mean the leagues would be of similar numbers to each other EVERY year, no matter how many resignations or new teams there were. This is fairer for all clubs.

It gives a quicker route to the Premier for new teams. Over the years we've seen a number of clubs climb through the leagues (Dunlop Cor, Stewarton Utd, Netherthird, Shortlees, Hurlford AFC, New Farm Loch...) so the 'stable' teams in the first, second and third have never won their league. This is more attractive to new teams who view 4 seasons to get to the Premier as too long, and would give more teams a real chance to win their league.

It would also mean playing different teams regularly, so there would be no monotony of playing the same 7/8 teams every year.

If you have six (not three as posted by others) poor games at the start of the season now, you'll spend the rest of the season fighting relegation and potentially losing players. Or in the new structure you would be in a league where you should be stronger and should therefore be challenging to win the league without fear of relegation, is that not more attractive to players?

Regionalising could be an option, but the main priority should be balancing the number of teams in each league, so it would result in moving teams to a lower league, who have fought all season to not be in a relegation position. Is that fair? It would also mean only promoting one team from a regional league of 12, or relegating 4 teams from the Premier. Neither option seems right.

Combining first and second would mean moving teams to a lower league than they're in. Combining second and third would be two leagues of 11 so only
20 league games compared to 26 in the first. And generally these clubs don't do as well in cup competitions so they'd be paying the same amount of money for far fewer games. 4 being relegated from a league of 14 seems a lot but only 1 promoted from 11 isn't enough, so you'd need play-offs at the end of the season? A lot of people don't like that either. And could still result in only one team promoted from 11.

A league of 9 clubs would be much more competitive with more teams fighting to win the league, meaning more competitive matches. I'm not sure why these games would be "friendlies" or "meaningless"? And there'd be fewer meaningless games than there are now, surely?

The "prize is better seeding", OR winning the league and getting your name on a trophy and a league winners medal?!

"U could have West Kilbride or Tarbolton in the 4th next Season" - fighting to win a league, knowing they can build a team and bring in some youngsters and not get relegated, and could go for the Premier next season. And you could have Irvine Town and Crosshouse Waverley in the first, trying to win promotion to the Premier!

Also, clubs would get their first 6/7/8 fixtures in advance (depending on Cup draws) and know who and when they were playing, which some clubs have been asking for. This would allow clubs to prepare for their fixtures and players arrange work if possible, better than the current situation.

There are of course cons, as there are with every structure.

But what do we know, apparently we're not football men and should be thrown off the committee for even having an opinion or daring to think of something new, and in my opinion fairer to all clubs, more competitive, more exciting and more flexible than we currently have...

Sorry graham only thing I agree with you on is the comment of

" not football men and thrown off the committee"

That a shocking comments considering how much of your own time that u lot put in for the better of our game.

The rest tho I think there are stronger counter arguments.

U say combining the 2nd and 3rd would only mean 20 games. The new format only has 20 for the lowest league and 22 for the rest. So having the two combines and then having a playoff for a couple teams seems around the same number of games so not a disaster.

More games are meaningless tho as There is no relegation. No team wants Relegation but it is healthy as it means the teams at the bottom are playing to avoid that rather than only playing maybe be a better seed .

It reminds me of under 10s 7 aside. Where there is no league tables needed. Everyone knows who the best team is but no one wants the teams at the bottom to be disheartened and be relegated .

[lastnameontheteamsheet]

6 hours ago, eyeswideopen15 said:

 

 

Sorry graham only thing I agree with you on is the comment of

" not football men and thrown off the committee"

That a shocking comments considering how much of your own time that u lot put in for the better of our game"

 

 

Maybe jumped the gun a bit on that one, sorry. 

on the subject of competition, teams who are at the bottom after 5/6 games of their league season proper will soon find that there is nothing to play for. 

Currently these clubs have to fight off relegation but under the new proposals they would have no incentive to put a team on the park other than to fulfil their fixtures in preparation for the next seasons mini leagues. I really don't see how this can work. 

[Hursty]

The more i think it, the worse tbis idea gets.

Strangely enough, the only teams i can possibly see in favour of this are bottom league teams like us, as for a short term view, we could go 3rd to 1st.

Example - we are home to Dalry this week. The boys are well up for it as they lost today so the title is well up for grabs again especially as we are on a wee run of wins.

In this new proposal, who actually cares? Fighting to come 1st 2nd or 3rd in the 3rd div, when the final placing means absolutely nothing...whats the point.

[KAFC]

surely the easiest thing to do would be 

premier 12 teams

north/south 1st divisions created with 12 teams

and 2nd division with 10-12 teams depending on numbers.

new clubs can get to premier in 2 seasons and you are boosting almost all of your clubs by moving them up or keeping then in same div as they are already in.

this new proposal is not fair to a lot of established teams in the first in particular. 

[Xavi]

Having had time to think about this, it seems to be a terrible idea. Reasons being;

1/ the only real relagation would be from the premier league. 

2/ the only league winners with anything to show for it would be the premier and the first. Winners of the second might still no go up a league. 

3/ surely there would be loads of meaningless games. If your not getting promoted from the first then what are you playing for? You can't be relagated, you can't be promoted. Only thing you can affect is your seeding for next seasons seeding. 

I quite like the idea of a premier, north and south first with a second division. Certainly more logical than that proposal imo. 

Well done though to the AFA for trying to think of new ideas. 

[eyeswideopen15]

Having had time to think about this, it seems to be a terrible idea. Reasons being;
1/ the only real relagation would be from the premier league. 
2/ the only league winners with anything to show for it would be the premier and the first. Winners of the second might still no go up a league. 
3/ surely there would be loads of meaningless games. If your not getting promoted from the first then what are you playing for? You can't be relagated, you can't be promoted. Only thing you can affect is your seeding for next seasons seeding. 
I quite like the idea of a premier, north and south first with a second division. Certainly more logical than that proposal imo. 
Well done though to the AFA for trying to think of new ideas. 

100% agree

[dskafc]

Sounds like a more sensible idea xavi.

[KAFC]

I do think the new proposal is creative thinking but if better teams for whatever reason end up down in lower divisions players will move and i think teams will go out the game as many teams will find themselves in pointless positions!

 

[Xavi]

Well its a boring sunday night so Ive put a bit more thought into this.  Certainly far from perfect and some teams would feel hard done by but I think its workable.

If the AFA went with premier, north 1st, south 1st and combined 2nd division, the leagues would look like this, taking the standings at todays date, purely for illustrative purposes.  I think I have captured every team.  A couple of teams who would be in the north league have had to go into south to try and balance the number of teams.  Only 10 teams in the north, sound but you could have a play off system after each team has played twice, with top 5 and bottom 5 playing each other another twice, giving 27 games?

Relegation and Promotion

Bottom three in Premier relegated, top of north and south promoted, 2nd in north v 2nd in south with winner into premier.

Bottom of North relegated, bottom of south relegated. 2nd bottom of north v 2nd bottom of south, loser relegated. Top 3 in 2nd promoted. Plenty of exciting games with lots of play for during the season?

This is how league would shape up:

Premier:

Glenburn, Shortlees, Hurlford Thistle, Dirrans, Kilbride Thistle, Carrick, Galston, Clark Drive, Mossblown, Tarbolton, Hurlford AFC, Ardrossan Castle. (12 teams)

North 1st:

Winlinton Wolves, West Kilbride, Kilbirnie, Stewarton, Ardeer, Knockentiber, Troon, Fenwick, Irvine Town, Largs, (10 teams)

South 1st:

Daily, Cumnock, Glenmuir Thistle, Mauchline, Ochiltree Utd, Auchinleck Boswell, Drongan, New Farm, Kilmarnock AFC, Wallacetoun (escaping relegation in effect) (10 teams)

2nd Division:

Dean AFC, Coylton, Dalry, Minishant, Crosshill, Darvel, Broomlands, Symington Cale, Stewarton Annick Craigie, Beith, Lochan (12 teams)

[Kilbirnie AFC]

Thanks for the opinions Graham but I have a major concern about this and would like to know your you opinion on it 

Player movement after the groups  - I'm going to use us and Dalry as an example as we're close neighbours I'm sure they won't mind what happens next season for example Dalry get to the 1st and we only make the 3rd division what's to stop the Dalry management "enticing" a couple of my best players to join them to push for the premier and as many clubs will testify that it only takes a couple of the top players to leave to encourage far more to leave especially if they're friend etc so basically all the hard work I have personally put in over the last 4 years and the planning I have for next season just gets ripped apart and would potentially lead to the club folding ??? 

this is just an example of two local teams but what's going to happen in the Kilmarnock /Irvine area when you have got lots of teams within a short traveling distance of each other there is going to be a mass amount of player movement after the leagues are decided and you will have even more clubs folding every year due to this 

This also creates another problem of teams who make the 1st can then "entice" the top players from 4 or 5 different teams to make an even stronger squad and gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the division especially if there are people running the clubs who bend / break the rules to attract players from other clubs it's basically a dream scenario for clubs to cheat , what if any plans are in place to stop this from happening or what can actually be done to stop it happening ??

Is there going to be a vote on Thursday ??
Why are there not other proposals in place for us to choose between like some of the examples already posted ??

[Barcz86]

Probably the most insane idea yet. Pretty poor proposal if you ask me.If they want to re jig the structure all teams should have to do it premier included its only the fairest way. Theres teams thathave worked up through the divisions to get to the premier the first etc. Teams like catrine,new farm,hurlford afc, etc who have started at the bottom worked to get up the leagues. To then put there future and all that hard work in doubt over 3 games at the start of the season. Where you will most likely find alot of teams players are returning from holidays etc and alot of teams wont know there best 11. It wouldnt be a true reflection in my opinion.

If the ayrshire committee want to make a change in this way they need to involve all teams and divisions. If reconstruction is a priority the north and south proposal is probably the only way forward without causing chaos. 

[jimmycouch]

Would the north/south proposal not work best doing that as the second divisions, i.e. Premier, First, Second North and Second South?

[eyeswideopen15]

Would the north/south proposal not work best doing that as the second divisions, i.e. Premier, First, Second North and Second South?

I agree, that way two divisions to cope with any future withdrawals or additions

[Gunner]

Not a fan of this proposal. Seen it been adopted in other leagues too. 

 

For me, the clubs will ultimately be judged and grouped into their relative division based on their first few games of a season. Plenty of teams start strong and tail off as the season goes on and plenty of teams start poor and get going into the season.

 

I think it's a very damaging proposal and will see teams lose interest once they don't finish in the top and have no chance to fight for promotion. As ultimately, if you finish 2nd, 3rd or 4th the division you end up in is pointless because next season you will be getting rejiggled into another group of 4 to be judged on your first few games performance. 

 

I know, I would struggle to be motivated if I was in a completely pointless division..

 

 

FWIW - I dont think teams folding is down to the structure of a league... however, I do think this structure could see more go. 

[HibeeJibee]

If it's such a great idea - why are the Premier Division teams not included?

If the future is playing groups of 4 in August, then slicing into divisions according to where you finish, then it should surely embrace all 48 clubs - 12 groups of four slicing into 4 leagues of 11.


Obvious issue is that from September there is nothing to play for except the titles and next season's 'seedings'.

[The Goalie123]

North / South proposal - I know it's how it used to be but can't remember how it worked, what happens if it's 3 south teams that get relegated ? Do they all still go in south league ?

[Graham3179]

Just a few points on this, will try to keep it more brief than last time!  And again, I'd like to stress this is merely my opinion and again trying to play devils advocate.

Firstly, the sub-committee thought about lots of options and variations on many of the ideas mentioned but proposed this option (along with noting others) which was then agreed by the Executive Committee.  There is no plan for a vote on Thursday. This is far too important to do without the correct discussion, and I for one am glad that people are getting involved and having their say.

I would say that many people are focussing on the worst case scenario - what if we have a terrible start to the season, what if we lose all or players, what if we end up in the fourth division. A lot of people have mentioned having a poor start and not doing well in the first 6 games (again, not 3 as some have said!), but how is that different to now?  I looked at last season's leagues and compared how they stood after 6 games versus at the end of the season (ignoring the teams who later resigned).  In the first division, the bottom 6 after 6 games were all in the bottom 7 at the end, with Mauchline moving from 8th to 11th.  In the second, the bottom 7 after 6 games were the same at the end of the season except for Craigie who went from 4th to 8th and Irvine Town from 8th to 5th.  And in the third Crosshouse moved from 10th to 4th after a poor start, but the rest of the bottom 7 were the same.

The point is - after 6 games in the current format, teams in the bottom 6 places are generally there at the end - so what is it that they're playing for?  Would playing for a league winners medal not be better than fighting relegation, would players not prefer that and therefore not leave to join other clubs?

The next point is that I would have expected more teams to want to win their leagues? "Fighting to come 1st 2nd or 3rd in the 3rd div, when the final placing means absolutely nothing...whats the point" and "If your not getting promoted from the first then what are you playing for?" and "Obvious issue is that from September there is nothing to play for except the titles and next season's 'seedings'.".  Surely teams want to win a league, is that not the point of playing?? I personally find it odd that having a poor start to the season and maybe not being in the league you would necessarily want to be in means you just give up - surely that would mean you'd be in a strong position to win the league? And is it not better to be only playing for the league title without worrying about relegation.  I think that would mean less meaningless games than now, especially as the league only has 9 teams so only 16 matches.

Others have asked about players leaving if a club has a poor start and ends up in a lower league. Again, I think this is of course a concern but again is this different from now? Would players prefer to play for the 2nd division title in the new structure, or to fight relegation in the 1st division in the current structure? Unfortunately I don't know the answer to that one.  If a team has a poor start to the season now, are players leaving to join another team that's winning? And not every club will have a bad start to the season, there will of course be some of the mini leagues not going to form, but I'm not sure it would be all of them? Especially as a result of the seeding system, although the luck of the draw could play a part.

And Xavi, in your proposal - Dean have moved from the 2nd tier to the 4th tier, Coylton & Dalry are promoted from the 3rd division but are still in the bottom league and Beith and Lochan are moved down a league despite avoiding relegation.  I understand the concept of what you're doing but are those changes any more or less fair?  Any regional leagues would have to change every season depending on who gets promoted / relegated and would need to involve play-offs, those are all issues that teams didn't like before.

[eyeswideopen15]

Just a few points on this, will try to keep it more brief than last time!  And again, I'd like to stress this is merely my opinion and again trying to play devils advocate.
Firstly, the sub-committee thought about lots of options and variations on many of the ideas mentioned but proposed this option (along with noting others) which was then agreed by the Executive Committee.  There is no plan for a vote on Thursday. This is far too important to do without the correct discussion, and I for one am glad that people are getting involved and having their say.
I would say that many people are focussing on the worst case scenario - what if we have a terrible start to the season, what if we lose all or players, what if we end up in the fourth division. A lot of people have mentioned having a poor start and not doing well in the first 6 games (again, not 3 as some have said!), but how is that different to now?  I looked at last season's leagues and compared how they stood after 6 games versus at the end of the season (ignoring the teams who later resigned).  In the first division, the bottom 6 after 6 games were all in the bottom 7 at the end, with Mauchline moving from 8th to 11th.  In the second, the bottom 7 after 6 games were the same at the end of the season except for Craigie who went from 4th to 8th and Irvine Town from 8th to 5th.  And in the third Crosshouse moved from 10th to 4th after a poor start, but the rest of the bottom 7 were the same.
The point is - after 6 games in the current format, teams in the bottom 6 places are generally there at the end - so what is it that they're playing for?  Would playing for a league winners medal not be better than fighting relegation, would players not prefer that and therefore not leave to join other clubs?
The next point is that I would have expected more teams to want to win their leagues? "Fighting to come 1st 2nd or 3rd in the 3rd div, when the final placing means absolutely nothing...whats the point" and "If your not getting promoted from the first then what are you playing for?" and "Obvious issue is that from September there is nothing to play for except the titles and next season's 'seedings'.".  Surely teams want to win a league, is that not the point of playing?? I personally find it odd that having a poor start to the season and maybe not being in the league you would necessarily want to be in means you just give up - surely that would mean you'd be in a strong position to win the league? And is it not better to be only playing for the league title without worrying about relegation.  I think that would mean less meaningless games than now, especially as the league only has 9 teams so only 16 matches.
Others have asked about players leaving if a club has a poor start and ends up in a lower league. Again, I think this is of course a concern but again is this different from now? Would players prefer to play for the 2nd division title in the new structure, or to fight relegation in the 1st division in the current structure? Unfortunately I don't know the answer to that one.  If a team has a poor start to the season now, are players leaving to join another team that's winning? And not every club will have a bad start to the season, there will of course be some of the mini leagues not going to form, but I'm not sure it would be all of them? Especially as a result of the seeding system, although the luck of the draw could play a part.
And Xavi, in your proposal - Dean have moved from the 2nd tier to the 4th tier, Coylton & Dalry are promoted from the 3rd division but are still in the bottom league and Beith and Lochan are moved down a league despite avoiding relegation.  I understand the concept of what you're doing but are those changes any more or less fair?  Any regional leagues would have to change every season depending on who gets promoted / relegated and would need to involve play-offs, those are all issues that teams didn't like before.

Relegation is part of football and is healthy and that's what keeps the bottom of the league interesting and meaningful. If it's such a great idea to have no relegation snd promotion isn't important cos u have the opportunity in the mini league then make the mini leagues leagues of 5 and include the premier division then. Willing to make it exciting for a brand new team to take as established 1st divisions slot but can't risk them taking Clark drives or dirrans etc,