Unofficial Halesowen Town FC Forum

To date, we have played 35 games, in little over 20 weeks.

In the top levels of football we often hear the 'experts' talking of too much football, but is this the case at our level of football? I'm not in favour of a winter break or anything like that as I understand clubs like Halesowen need income throughout the year but asking semi professional players to play on the 20th, 26th, 28th December, and then the 1st and 3rd of January in my opinion it's too much. It gives very little time for training, working on patterns of play and time for players to recover from injuries. It is also a big commitment for the many volunteers involved in football at this level as well. (Not just Halesowen) I was really disappointed initially with our crowd yesterday, but when I think about it, if you go to the home games over this period and the away game at Stourbr*dge you've forked out £40 alone before all the add ons at a very expensive time of the year.

So, should we being playing less or is it ok as it is?

Myself personally I think it's too much, when you consider the higher leagues have better facilities, more cash flow and the vast majority have less game it seems a little unfair.

I would be interested to hear a post from one of the players on how they feel about it, I would imagine at least a few of them would have to work over the Christmas period, depending on what they do, but can't imagine them moaning at playing so many games in a short space of time.

Whilst it is nice to see more football in the holidays, to play more games when the pitch and weather is likely to be poor doesn't make too much sense. (Though I guess football is a winter sport) This debate has gone on for years at all levels as to whether we should have a winter break. Personally I think yes particularly at this level as the season ends usually at the end of April, surely extending it a couple more weeks into May wouldn't do any harm.

Now to me the solution would be to add a Midlands division in to step 3. That way you've got 4 leagues all running at step 3, reduce the leagues to 17-19 teams in each and then that way you don't have to play as many games midweek. All it would mean is that 4 teams would have to come down from both the Conference North and Conference South, the 4 from the North would slot into either the Northern League or Midlands League and the 4 teams coming down from the South would slot into the Southern League or Ryman League.

I know this would never happen because they've been banging on about a Midlands division for decades and it's never happened, but to me that seems how you'd get round the problem of too many games.

I do feel sorry for players at our level. Too many around the festive period. Put the fixtures as they stand today in my 2015 diary. After new years day no midweek fixtures in January. February sees a few mid week added.

I personally didn't see the point in non-league teams playing yesterday to be honest, as it turned out due to the weather most ended up being postponed anyway and I guess that after yesterday's performance and result it might have been for the best if our game had been called off as well. After playing Boxing Day (Friday) and then New Years Day and then scheduled to be playing Saturday 3rd Jan as well, I think those 3 games should be more than enough in such a short space of time.

I think a winter break at this level should be looked at, to me I don't see a reason why the non-league can't start a bit earlier in the season either, say the first week of August or going onto the middle of May - that would save a lot of the midweek games would involves a lot of travelling as well.

As for the attendance yesterday, despite it being over the Christmas period where a lot of people are off work it was nevertheless a Sunday game, which is a time people spend with their families and I suppose even more so over the festive period. It wasn't the warmest of days either, not to mention the money factor for some people. I think Boxing Day was a one off, the fact it was a local derby was a massive crowd puller and attracted a lot of 'neutrals' too. That said, you would hope a few more turn up on New Years Day.

I agree with your sentiment Rob, but I do feel there is an element of fitting in as many games as you can before the adverse weather.

I do feel we could do without the doodson cup and maybe the Birmingham Senior cup.

Surely the league, FA Cup and Trophy are suffice?

Also didn't we start the season late?

dalevillain wrote:I do feel we could do without the doodson cup and maybe the Birmingham Senior cup.

Surely the league, FA Cup and Trophy are suffice?

I agree - those cups are fairly meaningless and the attendances are always very low so there can't be much in it for anyone. Also they could dispense with replays in the Trophy and go straight to penalties.

Part of the problem is having to shoe-horn all the games in before the end of April although I know it's to do with clubs paying players' contracts and having a shorter timeframe etc.

The distribution of league matches soon gets thrown out with cup games and replays. We played just 2 league fixtures in November, but are due to play at least 7 in February, then rearrangements lead to imbalances in the sequence of home and away games - e.g at home 3 Saturdays in a row in March followed by 3 consecutive away Saturday matches.

I disagree generally with previous posts,put ourselves in Worcester Cities shoes who over the Christmas
period have been fitting in F A Cup games and replays,Trophy games two days before the 25th. as well
as the festive fare.If they are to end the season with silverware the Senior Cups are the only realistic
options.The only way to reduce the fixture congestion is to follow the Premier Leagues sic.Greed league,
and cut to twenty clubs.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I actually quite like the B'ham Senior Cup and seeing how we compare to the youth teams of the professional clubs in the area. The Doodson cup however is a bit of a farce. Having traveled this season to Newcastle Town and stood in a crowd of 71 I fail to see how this can benefit either club, it probably meant this game cost each club money with travel expenses, referee expenses and staffing the stadium etc which really shouldn't be happening.

I do think the league is too big and should be reduced to a more manageable 20 teams as opposed to 24. Not sure how this would work out though with regional issues, promotion/relegation etc.

Just trying to play Devils advocate: If the league is cut to twenty teams and we only played in the FA Cup and FA Trophy, if we lost in the first round of both- how would that affect our budget?

More games = more people through the gate, more programmes sold, more burgers, more beer etc.

Could we survive with a lot fewer games?