6 EFL sides make no fly pledge

[cheshiregreen]

FGR not a surprise member of the group.

Interestingly, the Bristol clubs are named here despite the airport and two lengthy trips to the NE.

English Football League sides make environment pledge - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67067513

Personally, think the no fly agreement should relate to the distance involved. Hard to justify Forest flying to a game just a little further than Plymouth to Bristol by road. Removed by Site Admin (to avoid it the thread turning political).

 

[Judge]

It's alright for Millwall to sign up to it "all roads lead to London," however Argyle have more massive journeys than anybody else thus the occasional flight to the north east won't harm anybody.

 

[The Doctor]

'No-fly' pledges like this are really just posturing and/or an attempt to put pressure on the bigger clubs that fly to games often.

If anyone really wanted to reduce the environmental impact of the EFL then the obvious move would be to restructure it into some kind of regional format. At the same time the number of teams in each division could be reduced a little which would impact on player wellbeing and further reduce environmental impact.

For example, the existing 96 teams in the Championship, League 1, League 2 and National League could be joined by 24 other teams from the National Leagues North and South to form 2 sets of 3 x 20 team leagues (north and south). I would have 4 up and 4 down between the regional versions of the Championship, League 1 and League 2 with 2 teams relegated from League 2 and 2 teams promoted from the Championship into the Premier League. 4 teams would be relegated from the Prem with the regional division they go into being based on minimizing the total travel distance (2 teams into north and 2 into south). This would mean that teams in the middle of the country might sometimes go down into the south but sometimes into the north.

I know that this would mean that we would only ever play teams from the southern part of the country but does that really matter in the grand scheme of things?

The biggest issue is that it would necessarily mean that the standard of the regional leagues would be a little lower on average which would make transitions to/from the (national) Premier League more difficult. This could be limited by reducing the number of teams in each league to 18 (so the second tier would be two current Premier League teams, 24 Championship teams and the best 10 League 1 teams).

Based on current league standings (taking just the top 16 League 1 teams) the 20 team Championship North and South would be as follows:

North:
Leicester, Preston, Sunderland, Leeds, Birmingham, Hull, West Brom, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Huddersfield, Stoke, Rotherham, Sheffield Wednesday, Barnsley, Bolton, Derby, Port Vale, Blackpool, Lincoln

South:
Ipswich, Norwich, Cardiff, Southampton, Swansea, Bristol City, Millwall, Argyle, Watford, QPR, Portsmouth, Oxford, Stevenage, Peterborough, Wycombe, Exeter, Charlton, Bristol Rovers, Cambridge, Orient

If there were 18 team leagues then it would be:

North:
Sheffield United, Leicester, Preston, Sunderland, Leeds, Hull, West Brom, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Huddersfield, Stoke, Rotherham, Sheffield Wednesday, Barnsley, Bolton, Derby, Port Vale, Blackpool

South:
Bournemouth, Ipswich, Birmingham, Norwich, Cardiff, Southampton, Swansea, Coventry, Bristol City, Millwall, Argyle, Watford, QPR, Portsmouth, Oxford, Stevenage, Peterborough, Wycombe

[well... that was a fun way to 'waste' half and hour!]

 

[IJN]

I'd rather drive to Brum than I would Norfolk/Suffolk.

 

[philevs]

'No-fly' pledges like this are really just posturing and/or an attempt to put pressure on the bigger clubs that fly to games often.

If anyone really wanted to reduce the environmental impact of the EFL then the obvious move would be to restructure it into some kind of regional format. At the same time the number of teams in each division could be reduced a little which would impact on player wellbeing and further reduce environmental impact.

For example, the existing 96 teams in the Championship, League 1, League 2 and National League could be joined by 24 other teams from the National Leagues North and South to form 2 sets of 3 x 20 team leagues (north and south). I would have 4 up and 4 down between the regional versions of the Championship, League 1 and League 2 with 2 teams relegated from League 2 and 2 teams promoted from the Championship into the Premier League. 4 teams would be relegated from the Prem with the regional division they go into being based on minimizing the total travel distance (2 teams into north and 2 into south). This would mean that teams in the middle of the country might sometimes go down into the south but sometimes into the north.

I know that this would mean that we would only ever play teams from the southern part of the country but does that really matter in the grand scheme of things?

The biggest issue is that it would necessarily mean that the standard of the regional leagues would be a little lower on average which would make transitions to/from the (national) Premier League more difficult. This could be limited by reducing the number of teams in each league to 18 (so the second tier would be two current Premier League teams, 24 Championship teams and the best 10 League 1 teams).

Based on current league standings (taking just the top 16 League 1 teams) the 20 team Championship North and South would be as follows:

North:
Leicester, Preston, Sunderland, Leeds, Birmingham, Hull, West Brom, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Huddersfield, Stoke, Rotherham, Sheffield Wednesday, Barnsley, Bolton, Derby, Port Vale, Blackpool, Lincoln

South:
Ipswich, Norwich, Cardiff, Southampton, Swansea, Bristol City, Millwall, Argyle, Watford, QPR, Portsmouth, Oxford, Stevenage, Peterborough, Wycombe, Exeter, Charlton, Bristol Rovers, Cambridge, Orient

If there were 18 team leagues then it would be:

North:
Sheffield United, Leicester, Preston, Sunderland, Leeds, Hull, West Brom, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Huddersfield, Stoke, Rotherham, Sheffield Wednesday, Barnsley, Bolton, Derby, Port Vale, Blackpool

South:
Bournemouth, Ipswich, Birmingham, Norwich, Cardiff, Southampton, Swansea, Coventry, Bristol City, Millwall, Argyle, Watford, QPR, Portsmouth, Oxford, Stevenage, Peterborough, Wycombe

[well... that was a fun way to 'waste' half and hour!]

Very interesting ideas!

 

[Quintrell Green]

I'd rather drive to Brum than I would Norfolk/Suffolk.

So would I, any day. Perhaps our boat building sponsors can take Argyle up the South coast to Southampton and Millwall. It would produce less air pollution and make the rest of the league green with envy at Argyle's enterprise!

 

[Mr Gillingham]

Wrexham flew 16 times last season (I presume that was 8 games) They got 111 points!

 

[Martin Brock]

I think Argyle fans north of Birmingham would be less in favour of this idea (yes, I appreciate we are in a minority compared to those in Plymouth and Cornwall).

M

 

[Duncanrice1]

Apart from this initiative being virtue signalling nonsense (given the UK's minuscule contribution to CO2 levels worldwide), we actually need some more of our Champ rivals to sign up to this. As Schuey said, they are arriving too fresh for our home games!!

 

[Penmaster]

Most of the clubs can probably travel on scheduled flights? So they environmental impact is negated as the flight was gonna go anyway?

I'd imagine we'd struggle with that a bit. There are daily flights to London and Leeds from Exeter and Newquay but anything outside of that would he a struggle.

 

[Pilgrims Progress]

'No-fly' pledges like this are really just posturing and/or an attempt to put pressure on the bigger clubs that fly to games often.

If anyone really wanted to reduce the environmental impact of the EFL then the obvious move would be to restructure it into some kind of regional format. At the same time the number of teams in each division could be reduced a little which would impact on player wellbeing and further reduce environmental impact.

For example, the existing 96 teams in the Championship, League 1, League 2 and National League could be joined by 24 other teams from the National Leagues North and South to form 2 sets of 3 x 20 team leagues (north and south). I would have 4 up and 4 down between the regional versions of the Championship, League 1 and League 2 with 2 teams relegated from League 2 and 2 teams promoted from the Championship into the Premier League. 4 teams would be relegated from the Prem with the regional division they go into being based on minimizing the total travel distance (2 teams into north and 2 into south). This would mean that teams in the middle of the country might sometimes go down into the south but sometimes into the north.

I know that this would mean that we would only ever play teams from the southern part of the country but does that really matter in the grand scheme of things?

The biggest issue is that it would necessarily mean that the standard of the regional leagues would be a little lower on average which would make transitions to/from the (national) Premier League more difficult. This could be limited by reducing the number of teams in each league to 18 (so the second tier would be two current Premier League teams, 24 Championship teams and the best 10 League 1 teams).

Based on current league standings (taking just the top 16 League 1 teams) the 20 team Championship North and South would be as follows:

North:
Leicester, Preston, Sunderland, Leeds, Birmingham, Hull, West Brom, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Huddersfield, Stoke, Rotherham, Sheffield Wednesday, Barnsley, Bolton, Derby, Port Vale, Blackpool, Lincoln

South:
Ipswich, Norwich, Cardiff, Southampton, Swansea, Bristol City, Millwall, Argyle, Watford, QPR, Portsmouth, Oxford, Stevenage, Peterborough, Wycombe, Exeter, Charlton, Bristol Rovers, Cambridge, Orient

If there were 18 team leagues then it would be:

North:
Sheffield United, Leicester, Preston, Sunderland, Leeds, Hull, West Brom, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Huddersfield, Stoke, Rotherham, Sheffield Wednesday, Barnsley, Bolton, Derby, Port Vale, Blackpool

South:
Bournemouth, Ipswich, Birmingham, Norwich, Cardiff, Southampton, Swansea, Coventry, Bristol City, Millwall, Argyle, Watford, QPR, Portsmouth, Oxford, Stevenage, Peterborough, Wycombe

[well... that was a fun way to 'waste' half and hour!]

Back to the days of the old Division 3 South and North.

 

[greenpilled]

There's lots of economic activity that could be made greener without affecting the cost or quality, particularly if supported by sensible incentives to get new technologies off the ground in the short term.

But football isn't one of them. It can’t be done remotely. Preparing for games with a 5 hour coach trip is going to mean a lower quality ‘product’ compared with a short flight. Regional leagues have lower status & mean less varied opposition.

Shorter journeys where check in & travel to/from airports add up to almost as much of a time commitment as coach or train travel are one thing but I hope we’ll be flying to most games this season (and i think that’s environmentally and economically coherent)

 

[Dorset Green]

Apart from this initiative being virtue signalling nonsense (given the UK's minuscule contribution to CO2 levels worldwide), we actually need some more of our Champ rivals to sign up to this. As Schuey said, they are arriving too fresh for our home games!!

The UK ranks 17th globally in contributions to climate change. Yes it maybe small in comparison to China, for example, but as a country, what we do or don't across a range of things still matters, or at least it should.
(Source: House of Commons Library)

 

[Duncanrice1]

The UK ranks 17th globally in contributions to climate change. Yes it maybe small in comparison to China, for example, but as a country, what we do or don't across a range of things still matters, or at least it should.
(Source: House of Commons Library)

Thanks, but I referred to CO2 emissions.....this is where it gets political as PASOTI admin predicted! Climate change and CO2 emissions are only connected if you want them to be and for whatever agenda suits the author.

 

[The Doctor]

Thanks, but I referred to CO2 emissions.....this is where it gets political as PASOTI admin predicted! Climate change and CO2 emissions are only connected if you want them to be and for whatever agenda suits the author.

Sorry, I’m not being political at all here but climate change and CO2 emissions are most definitely connected - opinions, political standpoints, personal agendas etc simply don’t come into it. It’s fairly basic physics relating to the interaction of electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths with certain molecules in the atmosphere.