Ayrshire league changes

[ayrshireTD]

I'm glad I'm. It the only one who thinks this is a shocking idea... you could technically win the 3rd division every year because you have a week squad for the first 3 games then a strong squad after everyone is back from holidays . I heard it has worked in Glasgow but not sure if this is true !!!

[dskafc]

Wonder why premier teams aren't being put in this set up? Don't see why they are different from any other ayrshire team. We all pay our league fees the same as them.

[Hursty]

Surely im picking this up wrong - would that not mean there would basically be no promotion or relegation anymore?

 

 

 

[CFCbhoy]

Wonder why premier teams aren't being put in this set up? Don't see why they are different from any other ayrshire team. We all pay our league fees the same as them.

There has to be a top league, somewhere for everyone to aim for so I understand why they are exempt but the rest of it is shocking imo

[eyeswideopen15]

Does that mean that association are expecting 2nd 3rd and 4th division teams to pay crazy league fees, and manage to field a team for the full "normal" season with the aim of a better seeding for the following season??? Surely not! If that idea has worked anywhere in Amateur football then it must be pub football!

[eyeswideopen15]

I get the league might need altered but why does it need to be that extreme? Why not combine the 2nd and 3rd, making it 2a and 2b.

Then either Regionalise or just lucky dip how to split them .

Make it winners from each go up, 2nd in each play a play off to go up, so 3 down from the first.

Or TBH if they first has 14 teams get 4 down automatically, top two from each 2nd go up! Both 3rd place teams play each other and the winner plays 5th bottom in the first in a play off.

That way there is more to play for in both divisions right up till the last game. And the potential for a major shake up each season

[The chassis]

20 minutes ago, eyeswideopen15 said:

I get the league might need altered but why does it need to be that extreme? Why not combine the 2nd and 3rd, making it 2a and 2b.

Then either Regionalise or just lucky dip how to split them .

Make it winners from each go up, 2nd in each play a play off to go up, so 3 down from the first.

Or TBH if they first has 14 teams get 4 down automatically, top two from each 2nd go up! Both 3rd place teams play each other and the winner plays 5th bottom in the first in a play off.

That way there is more to play for in both divisions right up till the last game. And the potential for a major shake up each season

It's no really fair in the 5th bottom team to get relegated? 

[auld yin wae knowledge]

Very ambitious and extreme idea and maybe worth a try, it has its pros and cons one of the cons may be you have to depend on the weather  even in August / September to finish the sections before you can create the mini league of 9, do not know any amateur league who has tried or has the set up though

[HoofIT]

Sunday Central do that do they not? 

[eyeswideopen15]

It's no really fair in the 5th bottom team to get relegated? 

I agree and think the first proposal of 3 up and down is a better idea, it was just " an extreme example" of a fairer way u can kept the leagues competitive, longer, and also have the possibility of a major shake up in the league one season to the other.

One things for sure being relegated a division for finishing 5th bottom seems fairer than the team that potential finished 3rd missing out on promotion by a goal scored could be relegated to the 4th the season after [emoji23]

Here I get that things need to change and no matter what is changed there is going to be clubs that are worse hit, but this seems crazy to me and There must be a better solution.

The amount of player movement In between the mini league and normal season will be huge! How do u attract new players to pre season when u can't tell them a league u will be in, and if u do manage to and "sell them" an idea of first division football and end
Up in the 3rd or 4th you could have a mass exodus on your hands. Meaning u might have a week to find players to fulfil fixtures

[dskafc]

Or worst case teams folding after mini leagues when boys realise they'll be playing in lower leagues.

[eyeswideopen15]

Or worst case teams folding after mini leagues when boys realise they'll be playing in lower leagues.

Yeah mate that's what I was getting at about fulfilling fixture.

[CFCbhoy]

There's absolutely no way the Ayrshire teams will vote it in anyway. Haven't heard anyone in favour thus far

[Hursty]

Any set up where the team that finishes 3rd in the first division could potentially be relegated to fourth division, while the that came bottom of fourth division could be promoted to the first is absolutely laughable.

Basically a case of who can get the best draw / best set of ringers in / avoid any longish midweek away games in August, then a bunch of friendlies unless you are in the first.

[eyeswideopen15]

Yeah asking teams and players to fork out thousands a year and the prize is a better seeding at best is a crazy idea. U could have west Kilbride or tarBolton in the 4th next season [emoji23][emoji23]

[The Goalie123]

First glance sounds mental however interested to hear the discussion pros and cons and think it has potential. I would say though need to do away with midweek games at start as they are unfair and potentially will decide a what division a team is in.

[lastnameontheteamsheet]

An absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous and nonsensical proposal which I hope goes down like a lead balloon. The person who dreamt up this nonsense should be removed from th AAFA as they are obviously not a football man. 

Competition between 4/5 teams in the first has been strong this year, to punish teams in this division by restructuring because of what is essentially a lack of clubs would be in very poor taste.

It would also create a vacuum of competition in divisions 2 and 3 as games would be rendered meaningless and as mentioned a few times, the movement and turnover of players would be huge, causing uncertainty for the more established clubs and we will see more and more clubs fold as a consequence. 

Let's hope common sense prevails.

 

 

[CFCbhoy]

An absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous and nonsensical proposal which I hope goes down like a lead balloon. The person who dreamt up this nonsense should be removed from th AAFA as they are obviously not a football man. 
Competition between 4/5 teams in the first has been strong this year, to punish teams in this division by restructuring because of what is essentially a lack of clubs would be in very poor taste.
It would also create a vacuum of competition in divisions 2 and 3 as games would be rendered meaningless and as mentioned a few times, the movement and turnover of players would be huge, causing uncertainty for the more established clubs and we will see more and more clubs fold as a consequence. 
Let's hope common sense prevails.
 
 

Agreed. The established well run clubs who complete their season's fixtures every year no matter what uncertainties are thrown at them are to now suffer because off the clubs who can't/don't/won't!!

[Graham3179]

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...

[lastnameontheteamsheet]

"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."

In my opinion, this where the whole argument and case for reconstruction falls down. A number of clubs have, for a number of years worked very hard to build and establish themselves as successful amateur clubs. Promotion and relegation is part of this. The stable clubs who have not won promotion to the premier, a la Kilbirnie Amatuers, provide massive competition each season and set out every year with the goal of promotion. 

Many of these clubs did not start out with the same squad of players they have registered today. They won the bottom division and attracted better players as they went thru the leagues, adding to their squad year on year. 

Clubs such as Dalry ams and Crosshouse will be punished as this structure does not allow them to plan for the long term. Uncertainty over which league they will be playing in does nothing to attract players and surely you must recognise that teams who are not successful at the start of the season will see a mass exodus of talent before the first "league" game of the season. 

"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." 

There will be no relegation, the next season you will be back in the pot for the groups and a chance to play in the first! Thus creating a vacuum of competition for the rest of the season because of a poor start. Also, losing players will see more and more teams fold, that is undeniable. 

"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." 

Your contradiction in the last two quotes is in bold. Having West Kilbride or Tarbolton in the 4th next season would decimate their squad and in turn, everything that their committee and players have worked so hard for over a number of seasons. 

"Clubs would get their first 6/7/8 fixtures in advance..."

Why cant this be arranged in the current format? 

There are major concerns and a lot of questions to be answered. I understand the need for more competition lower down the pyramid but surely there are better solutions?