|
Conference
Division Two - Does it make sense?
by Lawrie Harries
Over
recent months a major talking point in non-league football has been
speculation that the Conference wants to encourage some clubs in
the current Ryman, UniBond and Dr. Martens Leagues to leave and
create a new division of the Conference. Speculation has now become
fact as the Conference have applied to the FA to set up a new division.
The
advantage for the Conference is obvious in that it strengthens their
position by having a second division. For well-resourced clubs joining
this new division, there is the attraction of joining a national
league. The Conference will not take any club who fancies a change
of league. Clubs will be required to meet certain criteria in terms
of support, facilities and financial resources.
On
this basis, the Ryman League might lose clubs like Aldershot, Boreham
Wood, Dagenham & Redbridge and Sutton as well as others. Although
experience proves that a strong financial position today is not
a guarantee of financial strength tomorrow. A second division should
bring higher standards for players and spectators of those clubs
deciding to apply to go into the Conference, but at considerable
cost.
Financially,
travelling costs alone will be considerable. And how many supporters
will be able to find the time to travel to a midweek fixture at
Gateshead, Barrow, Morecambe or Southport?! There will be some players
who will not want to put up with the additional travelling that
a national league brings. But most, provided financial compensation
is adequate, will want to play in a higher league. This is natural
and understandable. The Conference view seems to be that if clubs
are ambitious they must want to get into the Football League.
In
the past the Conference have made clear that they expect all their
member clubs to be ambitious. This policy is itself controversial
and a number of Conference based clubs have argued that their ambition
was just to achieve Conference status. The major cost of a second
division of the Conference could come in the damage it will inflict
on existing leagues.
Removing
six or seven of the stronger clubs from each of the existing feeder
leagues must decrease standards in those leagues. Clearly if a small
number of clubs are to benefit it will be to the disadvantage of
the majority. On the other hand it might inspire the remaining clubs
to try and improve their standards and get into the Conference,
albeit division two.
It
is worth bearing in mind that had this idea been floated three or
four years ago Hayes would not have been a club who would naturally
qualify for the second division of the Conference. Yet to their
great credit, having won promotion they have gone from strength
to strength in the Conference and are more than holding their own.
Why the idea of a second division should be floated now is unclear.
This might be a case of frustrated ambition by clubs who consider
themselves Conference material but who are unable to achieve promotion
on merit by winning their respective leagues.
Part
of the reason is undoubtedly the refusal of Nationwide second and
third division clubs to grasp the nettle and go regional and part-time.
Financial realities will probably force a rethink of this strategy
sooner rather than later. The existing pyramid structure may not
be perfect but it is a massive improvement on the old system where
clubs sought election - or re-election - to the Football League.
In reality this turned into a lobbying session based on a combination
of the "old boy" network, horse-trading and who could afford the
most lavish hospitality! .
Whether
or not a second division gets off the ground there are strong arguments
for looking at some sensible restructuring of the leagues on the
basis of geographical areas. This is a separate issue and should
be examined at on it's own merits. In the meantime, there is a major
dilemma for the Ryman League and other feeder leagues. The decision
of the FA on the Conference application is awaited with very considerable
interest.
|
