Should the Play-Offs be scrapped?

[Southern Shayman]

Ticket prices were pretty ridiculous to be honest, the Conference said that was down to lack of subsidies which makes no sense when you think about the amount of emphasis the FA looks to place on 'grassroots' and non-league football, yet they don't appear to help out with £40+ for a ticket for a Conference game. The neutral voucher system worked quite well, but the price for the finalists needs to be lower.

Location - yep, I agree, and for Burton/Fleetwood it's a big ask. But likewise, Wimbledon - Luton a few years back shows that it would be risky to pick a truly neutral venue based on geography of potential finalists, even though I know that they had no choice in 2012 due to Olympics. But it emphasises the idea that you could just as easily have two southern teams having to go to Old Trafford if it was picked months in advance.

I think the answer is to keep Wembley, really push the neutral sales in the case of sub 20k attendances. But, most importantly, look to push the pricing structure down, include concessions etc. which is vital for a decent crowd.

It's easy for the Conference to blame the FA.

For me just get rid of see tickets, let the clubs sell them themselves. Scrap the money going to other clubs in the league and feed it back in to lower ticket prices.

 

[Gashead]

It's easy for the Conference to blame the FA.

For me just get rid of see tickets, let the clubs sell them themselves. Scrap the money going to other clubs in the league and feed it back in to lower ticket prices.

But the problem there is that would many clubs be able to deal with the demand? I agree that getting rid of See would deduct maybe £5 off the final ticket price, but whether the clubs can deal with 10k+ (potentially 20k+ for some of the bigger ones) is another thing.

FA Vase tix were £15/10/5 for Adults/Concessions/Kids, so it shows something can be done to bring the ticket prices down when you consider how low the attendances are for the Vase. Whether that's the FA's fault or the Conference's fault, the prices need to come down a bit somehow.

 

[Gibber_McGee]

I don't think the playoffs should be scrapped but think there's definitely a call for 2 automatic spots the last couple of years. This season with Barnet and Bristol battling for top spot for most of the season, and last season with us and Luton sharing first and second for the majority of the season, it'd be criminal if either of us didn't go up! The only problem is coming from the other direction, it'd mean more 'big' clubs dropping out of the league and being replaced by hobby clubs.

Many of the "hobby" clubs are already in league 1/2. Many (the majority?) of the clubs in league 2 these days are not traditionally "big" clubs. Because of the lack of relegation and promotion places it's likely to stay like that for many years to come.

I hope if and when my club goes up we take the lead in pushing for 3 up/3 down.

 

[Greenacres]

I don't know who sets the prices at Wembley, but for the Conference final there has to be a good argument for charging far less and trying to fill the place. The game this year sounded pretty amazing on the telly, imagine how much better it would have been with the stadium full. I know there is a risk that you will end up with loads of neutrals who won't join in with the singing, but surely it is better to try and fill the national stadium at every possible opportunity, to help repay the vast sum that was spent building it. At least when it is paid off there is a chance of England games being played on the road, as they used to be. Why not play friendlies at places like Old Trafford so people who live some distance north of London can have a chance to see them play. Save Wembley for the really big games.

With respect to the play-offs, from someone whose team made them this year for the first time, definitely keep them. With 5-6 weeks remaining in the season there were maybe 7-8 teams with a genuine chance of making the play-offs. This reduced gradually until the last day of the season when three teams competed for two remaining places. It amounted to one of the most exciting seasons the Conference has had in years, why on earth would we want to get rid of that.

 

[Chris FGR]

The play-offs make money, there is no way they'll ever be scrapped.

 

[slaphead]

No. Bring in a system like every other country where top (say 2) get promoted then 3rd place play 3rd bottom of the league above.

Or do whatever the hell the Belgians do. No one gets it, but more football.

This. Two legged 3rd top and 3rd bottom from the league above. But as has been pointed out, the play-offs make too much cash so they ain't going anywhere soon.

 

[Imp in Branston]

Not sure which system I prefer or is best to be honest. But as we haven't even really scraped near to being one of the play off teams since we have been in this hole of a place, I want the play offs to continue for a good few years yet. You never know we may actually compete in it one year?

 

[Gladders]

No they shouldn't be scrapped, half the teams in the league would have nothing to play for from Jan

 

[Davidimp]

No of course they shouldn't be scrapped but we should have two automatic places and a playoff winner going up and 3 coming down not that this well happen.
Be like turkeys voting for xmas.

 

[Si Robin]

I think they should be scrapped, but for the opposite reason to everyone else.

As a team that had to come top of the League to win promotion in 1999, I have always been of the opinion that only the Champions of the Conference should be promoted to the Football League. It was my opinion that as a non-league team the absolute dream should be to become a Football League team, and the only way to do it is be the best team in non-league. Being in the Football League should be seen as a huge achievement, not just another promotion.

That may sound silly now we're in the position we're in and, no, I certainly wouldn't turn down the opportunity of seeing my team promoted at Wembley having come 5th next season. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

 

[Gibber_McGee]

I think they should be scrapped, but for the opposite reason to everyone else.

As a team that had to come top of the League to win promotion in 1999, I have always been of the opinion that only the Champions of the Conference should be promoted to the Football League. It was my opinion that as a non-league team the absolute dream should be to become a Football League team, and the only way to do it is be the best team in non-league. Being in the Football League should be seen as a huge achievement, not just another promotion.

That may sound silly now we're in the position we're in and, no, I certainly wouldn't turn down the opportunity of seeing my team promoted at Wembley having come 5th next season. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

That does sound silly. Why should there be only one promotion spot from the Conference (which is effectively Football League 3 these days), when there are four from League 2 to League 1?

There should be two automatic promotion spots in the Conference, with a third going up via the play-offs.

 

[RobS]

I think they should be scrapped, but for the opposite reason to everyone else.

As a team that had to come top of the League to win promotion in 1999, I have always been of the opinion that only the Champions of the Conference should be promoted to the Football League. It was my opinion that as a non-league team the absolute dream should be to become a Football League team, and the only way to do it is be the best team in non-league. Being in the Football League should be seen as a huge achievement, not just another promotion.

What's been smart about the Conference-League relationship is that it's been allowed to grow over time. I think in 1999 the gap in both quality of football but also in the feel of the game between League Two and the Conference meant that this stance made sense. In the last 15 years the gap has steadily dropped making the 'league'/'non-league' distinction much less meaningful (I wonder if it will be one that people will retain in 20 years time...). I don't know actually if the gap has sufficiently narrowed to move to the '3 up/3 down' stage yet: I think that it would be worse to do this too soon than a little late and think we might be 5 years off it.

However it is something that should be a goal and perhaps including the 3rd from bottom League 2 side in the play-offs would be a way of encouraging its introduction.

 

[Kim Mitten]

As said above it won't happen purely from a financial point of view. Think they said on sky Southend and Wycombe made an extra £500k than the 3 promoted sides by making it to the playoff final! probably less money in the Conference but all 4 playoff teams will have earned more than Barnet by the end.

Also - I think 3 up 3 down will come if it is dressed up for the FL sides. The idea of adding the 3rd bottom into the playoffs is the way to go - but I think what will happen is something along the lines of the 3rd bottom team advancing straight to the final and the final being played at their home ground - so this season you'd have had this as a scenario:

1st Round: Grimsby (3rd) v Macclesfield (6th); Eastleigh (4th) v Forest Green (5th)
2nd Round: Winners of 1st round ties
Final: Hartlepool v Winners of 2nd round - played at Hartlepool.

Also would LOVE to see the madness of the end of season Belgian promotion where about 14 teams take part in groups and the teams that top the group either stay in the division they were in or get promoted, the team from something like 10th in the division below gets a chance to win promotion.

 

[Si Robin]

That does sound silly. Why should there be only one promotion spot from the Conference (which is effectively Football League 3 these days), when there are four from League 2 to League 1?

There should be two automatic promotion spots in the Conference, with a third going up via the play-offs.

The number of promotion places from League 2 to 1 is irrelevant. The reason the Conference has become a "League 3" is because of the second promotion spot. It is also because of the second spot that the Conference is now predominantly professional. You might argue, although I could never guarantee it, that the second promotion spot has also increased the number of sugar-daddies in non-league football, with it now being easier to gain promotion to the Football League.

The sad fact is though, the Conference is not, and never will be League 3. It is not governed by the Football League and the financial implications of dropping into it are phenomenal. How many clubs have had shocking financial issues since relegation?

Hence my point, if one club goes up and one goes down, the traditional Football League clubs, with their much larger fan-bases, will eventually get up and remain in the Football League. 3 up/3 down will simply water down the gap between Football League and non-league to such an extent as to make the gap irrelevant.

For me, that will make promotion to the Football League less of an achievement.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but it's just my personal opinion.

 

[Si Robin]

That does sound silly. Why should there be only one promotion spot from the Conference (which is effectively Football League 3 these days), when there are four from League 2 to League 1?

There should be two automatic promotion spots in the Conference, with a third going up via the play-offs.

The number of promotion places from League 2 to 1 is irrelevant. The reason the Conference has become a "League 3" is because of the second promotion spot. It is also because of the second spot that the Conference is now predominantly professional. You might argue, although I could never guarantee it, that the second promotion spot has also increased the number of sugar-daddies in non-league football, with it now being easier to gain promotion to the Football League.

The sad fact is though, the Conference is not, and never will be League 3. It is not governed by the Football League and the financial implications of dropping into it are phenomenal. How many clubs have had shocking financial issues since relegation?

Hence my point, if one club goes up and one goes down, the traditional Football League clubs, with their much larger fan-bases, will eventually get up and remain in the Football League. 3 up/3 down will simply water down the gap between Football League and non-league to such an extent as to make the gap irrelevant.

For me, that will make promotion to the Football League less of an achievement.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but it's just my personal opinion.

 

[RobS]

... 3 up/3 down will simply water down the gap between Football League and non-league to such an extent as to make the gap irrelevant.

For me, that will make promotion to the Football League less of an achievement.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but it's just my personal opinion.

I'm not sure many people would disagree with those claims; rather, it's why on earth you'd consider a more fluid and competitive pyramid engaging more clubs and a wider range of communities to be a bad thing??

 

[Habbinalan]

......I don't know actually if the gap has sufficiently narrowed to move to the '3 up/3 down' stage yet: I think that it would be worse to do this too soon than a little late and think we might be 5 years off it.

However it is something that should be a goal and perhaps including the 3rd from bottom League 2 side in the play-offs would be a way of encouraging its introduction.

Interesting angle on play off format options. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32969416

 

[Habbinalan]

.................I think what will happen is something along the lines of the 3rd bottom team advancing straight to the final and the final being played at their home ground - so this season you'd have had this as a scenario:

1st Round: Grimsby (3rd) v Macclesfield (6th); Eastleigh (4th) v Forest Green (5th)
2nd Round: Winners of 1st round ties
Final: Hartlepool v Winners of 2nd round - played at Hartlepool.........
.

I don't like that format.

The single match with home advantage at lower levels seems to take some of the buzz out of their play-offs. I can see how costs, number of matches and few travelling fans may make it their preferred option but two legged semis and a neutral venue for the final would maximise fan interest and income.

For us, playing the final at the L2 home ground would give major capacity and crowd management problems. Not an issue if FGR or Eastleigh had got through but imagine the mayhem if Bristol or Grimsby were at Hartlepool (or most L2 grounds). Even if travelling teams got more tickets, the home club would have thousands of disappointed fans and lose massive income.

 

[Gibber_McGee]

The number of promotion places from League 2 to 1 is irrelevant. The reason the Conference has become a "League 3" is because of the second promotion spot. It is also because of the second spot that the Conference is now predominantly professional. You might argue, although I could never guarantee it, that the second promotion spot has also increased the number of sugar-daddies in non-league football, with it now being easier to gain promotion to the Football League.

The sad fact is though, the Conference is not, and never will be League 3. It is not governed by the Football League and the financial implications of dropping into it are phenomenal. How many clubs have had shocking financial issues since relegation?

Hence my point, if one club goes up and one goes down, the traditional Football League clubs, with their much larger fan-bases, will eventually get up and remain in the Football League. 3 up/3 down will simply water down the gap between Football League and non-league to such an extent as to make the gap irrelevant.

For me, that will make promotion to the Football League less of an achievement.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but it's just my personal opinion.

You're wrong though. The lack of promotion places has meant fewer "traditional" football league clubs are actually in the football league. Take a look at the clubs in league 2 and the conference and it is clearly evident. As an example, a couple of years ago my team finished second on 98 points to Fleetwood and didn't get promoted. My team is better supported and better run than many league 2 clubs too if that has any relevance. Are you seriously saying that is fair? All we want is a level playing field.

I think you have a very outdated idea of "league" vs. "non-league". Why should the football league be a semi-closed shop when there are many well run professional clubs that would improve it and augment it but are unable to get in?

Increased promotion and relegation will also share the wealth around more which can only be a good thing.

I really can't see any sensible argument against it.

 

[Gladders]

How many of those bigger clubs dropped because of two relegation spots instead of one, and how many tinpot clubs have been promoted because of two promotion spots instead of one.

More importantly how many traditional league clubs have dropped to non-league because re-election was scrapped?

 

[SomeMightShay]

There's been quite a lot of discussion about this in the NLP recently.

For a club like Woking, who realistically aren't going to win the league, the play-offs give us a doable target.

The argument against is that the team in 2nd deserve to go up rather than a side who may have finished 10 points below them.

Thoughts?

100% absolutely not. Getting rid of the play-offs and the game would lose it's credibility and attendances at clubs would tumble.

Next.

 

[Kim Mitten]

I don't like that format.

The single match with home advantage at lower levels seems to take some of the buzz out of their play-offs. I can see how costs, number of matches and few travelling fans may make it their preferred option but two legged semis and a neutral venue for the final would maximise fan interest and income.

For us, playing the final at the L2 home ground would give major capacity and crowd management problems. Not an issue if FGR or Eastleigh had got through but imagine the mayhem if Bristol or Grimsby were at Hartlepool (or most L2 grounds). Even if travelling teams got more tickets, the home club would have thousands of disappointed fans and lose massive income.

But I think it is a way of getting a 3 up 3 down started. Right now, as many have said, it's turkeys voting for Christmas, clubs in the FL simply won't do it, if you gave them the option of something where they would reap the majority of the financial reward (by hosting a playoff final) and skew it to 'home field advantage' you might just get the start of 3 up 3 down. If the conference team consistently beat the 3rd bottom FL side the calls for a straight promotion/relegation picture would grow louder and louder and couldn't be ignored.
As for the hosting issues, would just have to be - it's no different to last day deciders for promotion/relegation issues where you suddenly get thousands of away fans turn up.

 

[Gashead]

Article today in the Grimsby Telegraph suggests that despite a 47k attendance at last year's play off final, Grimsby only received £53,000. SeeTickets would have received a six figure fee at least.

Where does the money go? Surely if the Football Conference can't afford to hire Wembley without there being any financial incentive to the teams playing, is it worth having the game there?

 

[JaggerCFC]

low balling the cost of tickets to £30 to consider concession and full price, there should be a pot of £1,410,000, before costs...... Wembley must keep all food and drink sales.

 

[Southern Shayman]

Article today in the Grimsby Telegraph suggests that despite a 47k attendance at last year's play off final, Grimsby only received £53,000. SeeTickets would have received a six figure fee at least.

Where does the money go? Surely if the Football Conference can't afford to hire Wembley without there being any financial incentive to the teams playing, is it worth having the game there?

For me, it's not the direct monetary benefit that's important from having a Wembley showcase final.

For the Conference it's about the exposure and the prestige that will attract a better deal from sponsors and BT.

For the clubs taking part there's the £53,000 plus all the merchandising profits. On top of that there is the impact on fan base long term. For example, how many kids going to one of their first Rovers game would have been hooked by winning a Wembley final that wouldn't have gone otherwise? How many lapsed fans does it bring back in? Wembley is such a huge thing for football fans that it must earn a lot of extra money in the long term, besides the basic ticket revenue, that you just wouldn't get from it being at Villa Park etc.

 

[Shotsfan1993]

This. Two legged 3rd top and 3rd bottom from the league above. But as has been pointed out, the play-offs make too much cash so they ain't going anywhere soon.

What about a playoff system where 3rd bottom in L2 play 3rd,4th and 5th in the conference. Then if the L2 side is that much better they will win it and stay up

 

[Vanni]

What about a playoff system where 3rd bottom in L2 play 3rd,4th and 5th in the conference. Then if the L2 side is that much better they will win it and stay up

Not for me. Conference winners and runners up go up, 3rd-6th placed go in the play offs. The L2 side in 22nd place go down, simple as. I mean they would have had 46 games to get themselves out of trouble, so why should they get another chance via the play offs?

Fans say that if the 3 up 3 down system were to be introduced, more smaller sides(I don't like to use the words "hobby" or "tinpot") would find themselves in the football league. I like to look at it from a different angle - the bigger ex-league clubs would stand a better chance too. Another thing is that if a L2 club finishes in 22nd place then that means they're simply not good enough to be a league side. It could be my club, but the way it is now is unfair and a joke imo.

 

[Jemfy]

Not for me. Conference winners and runners up go up, 3rd-6th placed go in the play offs. The L2 side in 22nd place go down, simple as. I mean they would have had 46 games to get themselves out of trouble, so why should they get another chance via the play offs?

Fans say that if the 3 up 3 down system were to be introduced, more smaller sides(I don't like to use the words "hobby" or "tinpot") would find themselves in the football league. I like to look at it from a different angle - the bigger ex-league clubs would stand a better chance too. Another thing is that if a L2 club finishes in 22nd place then that means they're simply not good enough to be a league side. It could be my club, but the way it is now is unfair and a joke imo.

What would be wrong with that if they earned it?...

But I'm with you Vanni, the more "smaller" clubs in the league, the more "bigger" clubs in the conference to fight for the promotion spots. No real net change given the number in the conference these days IMO. The thing that has caused change is sides like Chester and Hereford going under.

 

[Boz]

Not for me. Conference winners and runners up go up, 3rd-6th placed go in the play offs. The L2 side in 22nd place go down, simple as. I mean they would have had 46 games to get themselves out of trouble, so why should they get another chance via the play offs?

Fans say that if the 3 up 3 down system were to be introduced, more smaller sides(I don't like to use the words "hobby" or "tinpot") would find themselves in the football league. I like to look at it from a different angle - the bigger ex-league clubs would stand a better chance too. Another thing is that if a L2 club finishes in 22nd place then that means they're simply not good enough to be a league side. It could be my club, but the way it is now is unfair and a joke imo.

But isn't the same true of the sides who finish 3rd-6th in the National League on your scenario, yet they do get a second bite of the cherry. Fairness would suggest that if it was 3-up 3-down, then the side who finished third should go up automatically. However, given the money-spinning play-off genie is out of the bottle, that would never happen. When play-offs were initially introduced in the English leagues, they did have games involving sides from different leagues, so if the number of places increased, personally, I wouldn't have an issue with the 22nd side in L2 being involved.

 

[Paddy]

A take on the Australian system might work in favour of benefiting the 2nd place club.

Eg:

On a 2 up / 2 down system:
1st - Automatically promoted
2nd to 6th in play offs...

Round 1: 2nd v 3rd (winner goes in to final, loser goes in to next play off round

Round 2: loser of round 1 v 6th
Round 2: 4th v 5th

Round 3: winners of round 2 play off

Final: winner of round 1 v winner of round 3 for promotion (could also throw in home advantage for the round 1 winner if you wanted to add more benefits)

2nd & 3rd get a benefit over the other play off sides, an additional team qualifies for play offs thus making the final games of regular season mean more for even more sides, more play off games means more money to satisfy the fat cats in charge.