North v South

[Magpie Mike]

A slightly contentious post, but the question is, which is the better feeder league, NLN or NLS?

One could argue that the North has the bigger clubs, but in my poorly informed opinion, it appears that the NLS clubs seem to do better upon promotion.

Is that fair to say?

I am thinking of Braintree ( a few seasons ago ) Dover, and to a lesser extent, Boreham Wood, Bromley.

Last night for example, Maidenhead beat Fylde 4-1, albeit a slightly flattering result, with Fylde playing with 10 men for the best part of the game.
The battle of the golden boot guys so far is: Tarpey 6, Rowe 0 ( I think!! )
Not gloating of course..........( well just a bit!! )

By the way, class from the Fylde fans who gave Tarpey applause when he was subbed near the end.

Anyway, I would love to hear what other fans think about the question I posed at the start.

 

[LeWhites]

Promoted teams and their first season positions since 2015:

South
Eastleigh (4th)
Dover (8th)
Bromley (14th)
Boreham Wood (19th)
Sutton (12th)
Maidstone (14th)

North
Telford (23rd)
Altricham (18th)
Barrow (11th)
Guiseley (20th)
North Ferriby (24th)
Solihull (16th)


Ebbsfleet and Maidenhead are both outperforming Fylde and Halifax this season as well.

3 of the sides promoted from NLN have been relegated, 0 from the NLS. I think the pool of players up North is smaller, due to the massive amount of FL clubs up there, as well as the fact that there are so many bankrolled teams in the NPL and NLN.

Also worth noting that Solihull, Guiseley and North Ferriby are very small clubs to be competing in this league, and whilst a bit of money can get you to the Conference, it takes a lot more money to compete at this level

 

[Fyldefan]

Tarpey is on 7. Danny is on 1. Tarpey did look excellent last night but it's a long season and we're only 4 games in. We will score goals as will Danny the problem is the defence. I personally don't think Maidenhead will finish above us but I could be wrong. Time will tell

 

[Joe.]

When you look at LeWhites post, you'd have to assume the South is better, however I've always thought that if we were placed in the North for a season, we would struggle. Always seemed a more competitive league to me, but last season the South was excellent. To have two sides both on 90+ points and having only lost once at home (against each other) is excellent.

 

[Quakerz]

A slightly contentious post, but the question is, which is the better feeder league, NLN or NLS?

One could argue that the North has the bigger clubs, but in my poorly informed opinion, it appears that the NLS clubs seem to do better upon promotion.

Is that fair to say?

I am thinking of Braintree ( a few seasons ago ) Dover, and to a lesser extent, Boreham Wood, Bromley.

Last night for example, Maidenhead beat Fylde 4-1, albeit a slightly flattering result, with Fylde playing with 10 men for the best part of the game.
The battle of the golden boot guys so far is: Tarpey 6, Rowe 0 ( I think!! )
Not gloating of course..........( well just a bit!! )

By the way, class from the Fylde fans who gave Tarpey applause when he was subbed near the end.

Anyway, I would love to hear what other fans think about the question I posed at the start.

First point, in bold - one couldn't argue that the north has bigger clubs, there isn't an argument. It's a fact. There are at least 10 clubs in the north capable of regular 1,000+ crowds, whereas I haven't heard of most of the southern teams.

As for the rest of your post regarding the quality of players etc, I think you're probably right. My theory is that the population is so much greater down south that there are so many more players available of the national league standard. So even clubs with poor budgets, who have to pick up the scraps, will still find more players of the required standard.

Up north I think players of the required standard are thinner on the ground, just a theory of course.

 

[LeWhites]

My theory is that the population is so much greater down south that there are so many more players available of the national league standard. So even clubs with poor budgets, who have to pick up the scraps, will still find more players of the required standard.

We really struggle to attract players to Dover as we are so far away from everywhere, and there is a plethora of non league clubs around London/Essex/Kent that all pay reasonable wages. To the extent that we have resorted to buying a house to attract players from the North (Jamie Allen and Kane Richards I believe).

I think we are the exception rather than the rule though, as we are a little outpost in the arse end of nowhere. Clubs like Ebbsfleet, Bromley, Boreham Wood and Sutton are ideally located, not far from London/Essex, where it seems that almost all southern non league footballers live

 

[Harrier94]

When you look at LeWhites post, you'd have to assume the South is better, however I've always thought that if we were placed in the North for a season, we would struggle. Always seemed a more competitive league to me, but last season the South was excellent. To have two sides both on 90+ points and having only lost once at home (against each other) is excellent.

This is a good point. We both finished 2nd last season but when we met in the trophy we won comfortably 3-0.

 

[Quakerz]

It's the same for clubs like Darlo (and now Spenny and Blyth) - we're quite isolated from even the rest of the north. York is 50 miles from Darlo, and it's only once you get past York into the bigger population centres, that there becomes plenty of clubs and players. Those players are obviously going to want to do the circuit of clubs down there rather than sign for Darlo who are an outpost. We do have to pay bigger wages to attract players to us.

 

[Joe.]

This is a good point. We both finished 2nd last season but when we met in the trophy we won comfortably 3-0.

Indeed. The only competitive game we've lost in 2017, so I'm not sure if that's too much of a marker. Had that game been in March/April rather than January, I think it would have been a lot closer. Sounds like you did hammer us though, we were woeful from what I heard and read.

It's not really a comparison you could make, I guess, unless there's regular games between sides from the two league's. Quakers is right, there is no comparison in terms of size. The north has far more bigger clubs and crowds. Biggest crowds in the South this season will probably be Chelmsford and Dartford (I think, I'm sure Aberstone could correct me if I am wrong), who get below 1,000 most weeks.

 

[EnglishRed]

I think it's a different proposition when you reach the national as the competition for the available players is greater with some players who might play their trade in the regional leagues unwilling or unable to play in the national league, so therefore the more stretched pool up north becomes more of a problem. Teams In the south East particularly seem to be able to get a better than average calibre of players from the large London pool. Added to that the larger professional full time clubs at this level in the last few years have been predominantly northern (obvious exceptions like Luton do exist) which makes things harder again.

All that is completely without any evidence or facts to back it up. I have always felt that the clubs in and around London seem to be able to attract a slightly better level of player than equivalent players in the north. Look at someone like Welling, they've had excellent players over the years depite being a proper little tinpot outfit.

 

[Joe.]

Proper, tinpot and outfit in the same sentence. Brilliant.

 

[Luke Imp]

Agree with Q.

I've always thought the North is a bigger league in terms of money, club size and attendances (not sure on quality), but the south have a larger pool of players.

 

[LeWhites]

Agree with Q.

I've always thought the North is a bigger league in terms of money, club size and attendances (not sure on quality), but the south have a larger pool of players.

I'm not sure on the larger pool of players thing, given that the NLN has been known to include teams as southern as Essex

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

I don't know the finances in the south, but I think more clubs there get up with good, solid management, whereas in North I think its average managers who have so much money around them that its hard to fail.

Same said managers then face teams on similar budgets and get found out

 

[EnglishRed]

Proper, tinpot and outfit in the same sentence. Brilliant.

Don't forget 'little'.

 

[EnglishRed]

I don't know the finances in the south, but I think more clubs there get up with good, solid management, whereas in North I think its average managers who have so much money around them that its hard to fail.

Same said managers then face teams on similar budgets and get found out

Yeah clubs in the South are just well.run and don't have huge financial back ok Ng at all, like Ebbsfleet. Billaricay and Whitehawk.

 

[Aberstone]

Indeed. The only competitive game we've lost in 2017, so I'm not sure if that's too much of a marker. Had that game been in March/April rather than January, I think it would have been a lot closer. Sounds like you did hammer us though, we were woeful from what I heard and read.

It's not really a comparison you could make, I guess, unless there's regular games between sides from the two league's. Quakers is right, there is no comparison in terms of size. The north has far more bigger clubs and crowds. Biggest crowds in the South this season will probably be Chelmsford and Dartford (I think, I'm sure Aberstone could correct me if I am wrong), who get below 1,000 most weeks.

You're right. Unless Chelmsford or Dartford win the league though - no side is averaging over 1,000 in the league (we'd get close). To possibly counteract the OP, Brackley finished 7th in the North last season whilst we finished 8th in the South and yet they ripped us a new arsehole in our Trophy tie in February. They were better than anything I'd seen in the South since we had been promoted in 2014.

Playing in North West London, we've got a population of 10+ million living within a 30 mile radius so we should be able to attract a greater calibre of player than even the Greater Manchester clubs where it's going to be half of that population at best.

 

[Joe.]

Yeah clubs in the South are just well.run and don't have huge financial back ok Ng at all, like Ebbsfleet. Billaricay and Whitehawk.

You can also add Margate to that, but there is a difference. Take us out of that and the three have spent purely to just go up. They've not particularly invested in the club as a whole, whereas we have. I'm not going to sit there and deny our budget and wages, because it is pretty big. Outside of the squad, our owner has invested and is continuing to invest in improving the stadium in order to create a reasonable amount of revenue coming in constantly, rather than just on match days. Our pitch was always good when we had Peter Norton, but now we invest in it regularly and have another top groundsman since PN has died, and we have more sponsors than we've ever had. Whitehawk are just shit. The sooner they disappear back to County level, the better.

Also, our board are made up of members who were successful at Charlton for many years, and we have a young manager who is on his way to becoming a very good one, IMO. We're not your typical "moneybags club".

You're right. Unless Chelmsford or Dartford win the league though - no side is averaging over 1,000 in the league (we'd get close).

I notice you had 922 yesterday. Very good. If it wasn't for Maidenhead having an amazing season, we would have been the only club last season (I think) with a thousand plus average.

 

[Aberstone]

Billericay absolutely have invested in infrastructure off the pitch, which I can't say for the majority of shit or bust clubs before them (including Essex comrades Canvey, Grays and Hornchurch).

The best case study in this argument is to speak to Stortford, Oxford City and now Gloucester fans as to what league is better as they've experienced both.

 

[LeWhites]

I think the North is a better league, with better quality football and bigger clubs with more supporters.

For some reason, however, teams from the South seem to cope with promotion far better than the North.

 

[Joe.]

Billericay absolutely have invested in infrastructure off the pitch, which I can't say for the majority of shit or bust clubs before them (including Essex comrades Canvey, Grays and Hornchurch).

The best case study in this argument is to speak to Stortford, Oxford City and now Gloucester fans as to what league is better as they've experienced both.

I suppose they have, and the chances are they will end up at this level within 3 years. I dread to think what would happen if they were still in the Ryman in 3 years. Can't see Tamplin sticking around, but I hope he does long enough for them to not go into ruin if and when he does pull out.

 

[Magpie Mike]

Billericay absolutely have invested in infrastructure off the pitch, which I can't say for the majority of shit or bust clubs before them (including Essex comrades Canvey, Grays and Hornchurch).

The best case study in this argument is to speak to Stortford, Oxford City and now Gloucester fans as to what league is better as they've experienced both.

A very good point about the teams who have played in both leagues.
None of them have done particularly well in the NLS, and all seemed to do better in the North
( although we have to give Gloucester a bit of a chance to find their feet before we judge them ).

 

[Harrier94]

I think the North is a better league, with better quality football and bigger clubs with more supporters.

For some reason, however, teams from the South seem to cope with promotion far better than the North.

This basically ends the debate really. Proven by those figures over the past 2 years.

 

[LeWhites]

This basically ends the debate really. Proven by those figures over the past 2 years.

3 years.

But, ok.

2013/14 North - 5th and 21st // South - 12th & 16th (Salisbury relegated for financial reasons)
2012/13 North - 15th & 18th // South - 8th & 12th
2011/12 North - 16th & 17th // South 12th & 14th
2010/11 North - 5th & 21st // South - 9th & 10th
2009/10 North - 16th & 20th // South - 8th & 17th.

Average South promoted team finish 2010 - 2017 - 12th
Average North promoted team finish 2010 - 2017 - 17th

 

[Aber gas]

I very much like this thread. Excellent read. What sort of wages are being chucked about in south and north ?

 

[Soup Ladle]

To be fair the pool of players thing also applies in L1 and L2. Clubs of a similar size to us or even smaller were getting the pick of much better quality players and it's massively down to location. If you're a southerner, why would you want to move close to Hartlepool? Likewise, as a northerner, I wouldn't want to sign for Luton. Our squads have always had a northern bias with some from Yorkshire. Only the occasional outsider thrown in.

I often found that lower league teams from down south and the midlands had a smattering of all sorts whereas we could seemingly only sign North Eastern players or when we had some success, offer out good wages which attracted players from around and about. Think it's the same at all levels except for the Prem and the Championship.

 

[Solihull Mooron]

I think it's a different proposition when you reach the national as the competition for the available players is greater with some players who might play their trade in the regional leagues unwilling or unable to play in the national league, so therefore the more stretched pool up north becomes more of a problem.

That's exactly what our problem has been. I reckon our promotion squad would be around mid table in the national league, but a lot didn't fancy the extra travelling. 8 of them now play at Brackley and look how they are doing...

 

[B2TF]

Aside from the other potential factors alluded to above, the Northern clubs have all the fans, the Southern clubs have all the money. At this level, a relatively small investment of cash can negate a huge advantage in support, hence Mickey Mouse affairs like Brackley and their 150 fans can assemble a squad to outperform Stockport with their 3-4000 and Forest Green can delay Tranmere Rovers' return to the Football League despite taking only a taxi full of fans to the Wembley showdown. Unfortunately the football authorities are in thrall to the pound note, and are happy to let the national treasures that comprise the Brotherhood of Great & Historic Football League Clubs rot away in their new resting place.

 

[Farleigh]

Why does the north do better for attendances? Cultural tradition? Less mobile population? Fewer clubs per population centre, or more clubs at lower levels?

Maidstone are well attended, but probably not better than other similar sized towns. Very few of my workmates or neighbours attend games, although more than a few identify as fans and post support on Facebook.

 

[Joe.]

Aside from the other potential factors alluded to above, the Northern clubs have all the fans, the Southern clubs have all the money. At this level, a relatively small investment of cash can negate a huge advantage in support, hence Mickey Mouse affairs like Brackley and their 150 fans can assemble a squad to outperform Stockport with their 3-4000 and Forest Green can delay Tranmere Rovers' return to the Football League despite taking only a taxi full of fans to the Wembley showdown. Unfortunately the football authorities are in thrall to the pound note, and are happy to let the national treasures that comprise the Brotherhood of Great & Historic Football League Clubs rot away in their new resting place.

We're talking clubs who have gone up.

Sutton, Dover, Braintree, Welling and now Maidenhead. None of these sides are 'bankrolled', but competed, or will compete. Granted, Braintree and Welling are now back down, but Sutton and Dover are still there and don't look like going down anytime soon. Maidenhead will also be fine.

You're using Forest Green as an example, but it took them what, four years to get promotion with their money?

It took us four years to come back up.

Just because a club is spending money, it doesn't mean they're just going to piss all over everyone.

Being closer to London, Essex, etc. Gives the southern clubs a big advantage in signing players, with or without money. Unless you're Dover and you're miles from anywhere, except France.