The One Hundred Club

Football's administrators love to tinker. Leaving well alone and not fixing things that aren't broken are not part of their mindset. And while I am not that much of a traditionalist that I cannot accept change, I sometimes wonder exactly how much thought goes into the ideas that emanate from the FA, or the Premier League or anyone else involved in running the sport in this country.

Two years ago FA chairman Greg Dyke proposed a new division for the Football League to comprise a mixture of ten teams from Step One of non-League football (the National League) and ten Premier League B teams. The idea met with immediate and almost universal condemnation and was quickly dropped. The B team spectre was raised again when it was suggested that Premier League teams could enter second string teams in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy (JPT) and the latest proposals to re-organise the Football League raise the possibility that the introduction of B teams into the English league structure could soon be back on the agenda.

Greg Dyke

The new proposals are to increase the number of Football League clubs from 72 to 80, formed into four divisions of twenty teams each instead of the current three divisions of twenty-four clubs, giving a grand total of one hundred clubs when the Premier League sides are added. That means a reduction in games for each club from 46 to 38 league matches per season and puts the Holy Grail of the Premier League one step further away for a number of clubs.

A few Football League club spokesmen oppose these ideas, like Bradford City's joint-chairman Mark Lawn who says, "Losing four home games means we lose four incomes," and the loss of income from four home games is in no way offset by the reduction in expenses from the loss of four away games. Other chairmen are, if not exactly supportive, prepared to at least consider the idea, like Brentford chief executive Mark Devlin. "These proposals are a really good start for how we can tackle some of the problems Football League clubs are facing," he said.

Bradford City joint-chairman Mark Lawn. Picture: Daily Mail

The Football League's proposals have four objectives:

- To maximise the number of weekend/Bank Holiday league fixtures. The last time I looked, every Saturday during the season had a full set of fixtures, as did most Bank Holidays (Christmas Day excepted, and not all clubs play on Good Friday), so this objective is met under the current structure anyway. But if they mean "reducing the number of games moved from their original Saturday afternoon kick-offs at the whim of the TV companies," then good for them.

- To remove where practical fixture congestion and scheduling conflicts. Laudable, and a reduction in league fixtures means more free midweek dates for re-arranged games and generally provides more flexibility, so no argument from me on that one. Except, of course that to achieve it, clubs have to give up four home games and the associated income.

- To protect/improve financial distributions/income generation for Football League clubs. The devil is in the detail. The big question has to be how? As Brian Lawn says, four fewer home games means considerably reduced income; how do the Football League propose compensating clubs (even indirectly)? We'll have to wait and see how they put flesh on the bones for this proposal.

- To maintain the Football League Play-Off Finals as the last event of the domestic season. So maintain the status quo then. Not a radical proposal and one I'm sure few club chairmen would even deem worth commenting on, particularly since it would be difficult to have the play-off before the end of the regular season!

The list of perceived benefits that the Football League has come up with are questionable.

- The importance of each individual fixture will increase. How precisely? Games are important or they are not, that won't change. The number of apparently meaningless matches won't reduce as there will still be clubs in mid-table limbo neither threatened by relegation nor with a chance of promotion.

- Reduced travel costs to four games which are often at a distance. True, except that these cost reductions are scant compensation for the loss of income from four home games.

- Midweek travel for fans vastly reduced. Somewhat disingenuous this: it isn't often that the football authorities pay much consideration to fans, and they will continue to disregard them when it suits them to schedule games for the benefit of television rather than the supporters.

- Potential to reduce squad size.  Some club chairmen have already pooh-poohed this and it is difficult to see how clubs will be able to reduce squads by more than one or two players.

  

- Enhanced recovery time/match preparation.  Cannot argue with this one. Fewer games means longer to recover between games and could mean clubs can get by with smaller squads, but any gains will be marginal.

- Increased importance of reserve team football.  Again, how precisely? Are clubs going to play more reserve games as a result of this? And if they do, they will either need bigger squads, or players will play more often (being required for both first and reserve team fixtures) rather negating either of the previous two supposed benefits.

- Increase in sale of season tickets due to reduction in midweek games. With fewer games, season ticket prices ought to fall, which may result in increased sales. But, since clubs will already see a reduction in income due to having fewer home games they may be reluctant to reduce season ticket prices. If they don't that is effectively an increase in price per game and may actually cause sales to fall.

- Increased profile on League One, Two & Three at different stages of the season. How this is supposed to happen -and why it doesn't happen already - is not explained. Perhaps at some stage the Football League will clarify this.

There is provision in the proposals to revise the format of the Johnstone's Paint Trophy to include a group stage, so on the one hand the Football League propose reducing the number of league games and on the other increasing the number of games in the less meaningful JPT. But, of course doing so also allows for the inclusion of Premier League B teams in the JPT, which potentially opens the door to these sides in the league itself.

Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey has dismissed the idea of B teams in the Football League, saying that in addition to the two clubs promoted from the National League (Step One of non-League football) the next logical place for the extra clubs to come from would be promoting the next six teams from the National League." That, however is not set in stone and the idea of the Glasgow clubs Celtic and Rangers entering the Football League has again been floated, an idea which Shaun Harvey accepts might be difficult to accomplish, but which he does not dismiss out of hand.

Celtic play Rangers: could these two Scottish clubs every play in the Football League? Picture: Sky Sports

Taking eight clubs out of the National League (Step One) in one fell swoop will send ripples through Steps Two, Three, Four and Five of non-League football. Clubs will have to be promoted to fill vacancies or leagues will have to reduce the number of clubs in their constitutions, and while that is something some leagues may not be averse to,  there has been no consultation with the National League and below, and apparently no consideration given to this by the Football League in making their announcement.

Sixty-five of the Football League's seventy-two clubs need to vote in favour of these proposals when they come up for consideration at the Football League's AGM, and from comments made by a number of club chairmen, I would think that considerably fewer than that number will do so. However, this is merely the start. If the Football League are knocked back with these ideas, I've no doubt they will formulate an alternative plan - watered down a bit perhaps, but with similar long term objectives.

Shaun Harvey, Football League CEO. Picture: The Football League.

Even club chairmen who oppose the current proposals will accept that some changes to the League's structure may be inevitable and could be beneficial, but like me, I'm sure that most of them are looking at these and wondering who would benefit from them as they stand. Shaun Harvey says "There are clear benefits for everyone," and I don't have a problem with either the objectives or the perceived benefits - although I would question how clear they are and  achievable they are - just with the route the Football League wants to take to achieve them.

The Football League clubs will vote on the matter at next month's AGM and I think I can predict the outcome. After all, given the choice, turkeys would not vote for Christmas.