Jump to content


Photo

The New League


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Eric Way

Eric Way

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • My Team:Cambridge City
  • LocationRednal

Posted 18 June 2017 - 01:14 PM

I would be grateful if someone could shed some light on this.   Why have Moneyfields, near Portsmouth, decided to join the Southern league south east, and not the Rymans league, south.  Their away costs, in time and money, no pun intended, would be  much reduced in the Rymans league.  

Conversely, why have Mildenhall and Soham decided to be in the Rymans league and not the southern?  I know leagues are in competition, but the Moneyfields thing is seriously odd.

 

 Is there financial benefit to join one league and not the other?  City v Soham and Mildenhall would be cracking fixtures, having said that new blood is also a good thing.  But from Portsmouth?  City have two cracking games v Bedford and Rushden.  Looks like a good season coming up.



#2 Andy Dewey

Andy Dewey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • My Team:Cambridge City
  • LocationUNITED KINGDOM

Posted 18 June 2017 - 06:43 PM

Eric,  clubs have no choice ,  leagues have no choice .  The FA has a list of all clubs in England

at each level below the National League and allocates clubs to leagues as best it can to create 

as near as possible equal average travelling . Its fact that some clubs in each division will have to 

travel further than others .  There are six divisions in England at our level ( next season there will be 

7 I believe and an extra one at Southern Prem level to try and equalise and cut the travel .Its inevitable that

in each division clubs will have other clubs closer to them than some in their own division . There is no other

way to do it with the same number of clubs in each division .

I hope that explains it  . 



#3 Eric Way

Eric Way

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • My Team:Cambridge City
  • LocationRednal

Posted 19 June 2017 - 11:21 AM

Thanks for that Andy.  I suppose we have to accept that there mileage sums add up.  Not for Moneyfields though.  I did not know that the leagues were told what to do.   Having different names is misleading.  If its all one organisation why dont they have a southern north, and a southern south?, using London as a cut off, north London and south?

Just thinking out loud.

 

Eric.

 

p.s, i remember Gloucester being in the Northern Premier league.



#4 Andy Dewey

Andy Dewey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • My Team:Cambridge City
  • LocationUNITED KINGDOM

Posted 19 June 2017 - 08:28 PM

Thats the whole point Eric , you cant have a fixed physical boundary ..   There will be 48 clubs within the 

current Isthmian Prem and Southern Prem area and they have to be split in to two leagues so from summer 

to summer the physical boundary changes as the clubs change  . 



#5 Eric Way

Eric Way

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • My Team:Cambridge City
  • LocationRednal

Posted 20 June 2017 - 12:41 PM

Thats true. The boundaries are porous though, Rushden were in the Northern league south last season.  I have had a quick look on wikipedia at the Isthmian league, luckily it has a map of where the clubs are situated geographically.    If we put Moneyfields in the Isthmian league south, then one of those clubs need to move to the north division.

 

Barking and Thamesmead town are in central London, and by the wiki map, are a stones throw apart.  Barking are in the north division, Thamesmead in the south.   If the FA moved Thamesmead to the north it creates a vacancy for Moneyfields.  It also creates a local derby.   With Thamesmead in the north, a north club can move to the southern league central.  Soham or Mildenhall can the move to the southern central in place of Moneyfields.

 

I have also had a look at the mileage on google for the Rushden v Moneyfields game, its 135.  This would be the case for the Bedfordshire clubs, and i cant think of an easy route.  It cuts both ways, cambs and beds clubs have to do that journey in the opposite direction.   I havent looked at the geography of the central clubs, i know Beaconsfield are on the orbital London road.

 

I wonder how many anomalies like that there are.  What i do know is that you cant argue with a dictatorship like the FA, and you must do as your told.   One note of interest. Thamesmead have a ground capacity of 6,000, according to wiki, thats huge by our standards.

Intuition tells me you will disagree with this assessment, and i would be grateful if you can prove me wrong.  After all i spent 15 minutes on this project, if you can call it that.

Eric.



#6 Andy Dewey

Andy Dewey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • My Team:Cambridge City
  • LocationUNITED KINGDOM

Posted 20 June 2017 - 10:15 PM

Eric, I dont disagree with you at all . I believe I said there will always be these apparent anomalies for which no doubt The FA will have their reasons but whether we would agree with them is anybodies guess .



#7 Eric Way

Eric Way

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • My Team:Cambridge City
  • LocationRednal

Posted 21 June 2017 - 05:20 PM

I have had a quick look at the Moneyfields website.  They dont seem to have any players at the moment.  All they tell you is a history.  Their ground has a 2,000 capacity, it has a clubhouse and a seating stand of about 200.  The rest is railings.  They were formed i 1987.

 It seems to me that the FA smiles more on some and not others.  Am i saying they are partial?, of course not, that is unthinkable.   It has repercussions for us too, we wouldnt want to get on their wrong side.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users