Jump to content

‘A £100m offer could be made next month’


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Yes you have.  As you can plainly see here, even in British sport where a conference exists it is not part of a division, instead if both a conference and divisions exist the divisions are within the conference(s).  QED

How much googling did you have to do to find that 😂.

More importantly you don't seem to realise that after all that googling what you are linking to disproves what you are trying to say. The Conference Premier as it was known in your link (formerly known as the Alliance Premier League and now the National League) is a higher division above Conference North and Conference South which are the same level (Now know as National League North and South) that you link to. You know the very thing you argued against. Also for 25 years the National League was a single, standalone division, including at the time your link cites, and in that time was largely known as the Football Conference. Thanks though for researching this and disproving your own point.

Anyhow as I previously said it wouldn't even change the fact that it would make absolutely no sense in the discussion we are having. That is why people frequently talk on here of East/ West conferences or North/South.

Feel free to equate everything to what the US does though if it makes you happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, Damien said:

How much googling did you have to do to find that 😂.

More importantly you don't seem to realise that after all that googling what you are linking to disproves what you are trying to say. The Conference Premier as it was known in your link (formerly known as the Alliance Premier League and now the National League) is a higher division above Conference North and Conference South which are the same level (Now know as National League North and South) that you link to. You know the very thing you argued against. Also for 25 years the National League was a single, standalone division, including at the time your link cites, and in that time was largely known as the Football Conference. Thanks though for researching this and disproving your own point.

Anyhow as I previously said it wouldn't even change the fact that it would make absolutely no sense in the discussion we are having. That is why people frequently talk on here of East/ West conferences or North/South.

Feel free to equate everything to what the US does though if it makes you happy.

So do you admit that Conference North and Conference South are two divisions within a conference then, and therefore divisions fit within a conference rather than the reverse?  Because that's what you just implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

So do you admit that Conference North and Conference South are two divisions within a conference then, and therefore divisions fit within a conference rather than the reverse?  Because that's what you just implied.

No, because they were two leagues in the 6th division of English football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

No, because they were two leagues in the 6th division of English football.

The Conference was a league below the Football League, thus Conference North and Conference South were divisions within that.  You can't have different leagues within a division, that would be even more stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

So do you admit that Conference North and Conference South are two divisions within a conference then, and therefore divisions fit within a conference rather than the reverse?  Because that's what you just implied.

I'm not sure why you want people on this board to fit it with your terminology. They are two conferences in the same division or tier for the the obtuse. You know the very thing you argued against.

I'm not sure why you wish to go round in circles on something that frankly isn't important just because people in the US view it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not sure why you want people on this board to fit it with your terminology. They are two conferences in the same division or tier for the the obtuse. You know the very thing you argued against.

I'm not sure why you wish to go round in circles on something that frankly isn't important just because people in the US view it differently.

As I've proven, there's no such thing as two conferences within a division any more than there could be two leagues within a division.  Divisions fit within a conference, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Picture said:

The Conference was a league below the Football League, thus Conference North and Conference South were divisions within that.  You can't have different leagueswithin a division, that would be even more stupid.

For 25 years the conference was a standalone league but still called conference. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept the meaning is different here and are trying to argue black is white.

None of these leagues you are quoting are even called conference anymore and haven't been for quite some years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Picture said:

The Conference was a league below the Football League, thus Conference North and Conference South were divisions within that.  You can't have different leagues within a division, that would be even more stupid.

They did! Because in English football that's perfectly fine as division = level = tier, and multiple (regional) leagues can operate at the same level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

For 25 years the conference was a standalone league but still called conference. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept the meaning is different here and are trying to argue black is white.

None of these leagues you are quoting are even called conference anymore and haven't been for quite some years.

Obtuse clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

For 25 years the conference was a standalone league but still called conference. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept the meaning is different here and are trying to argue black is white.

None of these leagues you are quoting are even called conference anymore and haven't been for quite some years.

Whether they're still called conference anymore is irrelevant.  I agree that a Conference can be either a subdivision of a league or a standalone league, most collegiate leagues in North America are called conferences rather than leagues.  That's yet another reason why divisions existing within a league — something we agree about — necessarily means that by definition conferences cannot exist within a division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Whether they're still called conference anymore is irrelevant.  I agree that a Conference can be either a subdivision of a league or a standalone league, most collegiate leagues in North America are called conferences rather than leagues.  That's yet another reason why divisions existing within a league — something we agree about — necessarily means that by definition conferences cannot exist within a division.

I find this entire debate irrelevant to be honest and this is my last reply on this. Lets suppose I had wrote the following instead which you say is correct:

Because they are 2 different conferences. They are not 2 divisions in the same conference.

It would have given entirely the wrong meaning to the vast majority on this board and conveyed the opposite of what I intended. Maybe you should also tell the NRL too though as they seem top have it wrong as well:

Welcoming a new team in Brisbane is the first step, and that is expected to happen in 2023. Then a second New Zealand team or perhaps a team in Perth would get us to 18 teams and allow for the formation of two nine-team conferences.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/04/30/nothing-to-lose-talking-about-conference-revolution/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

I don’t care but I vote we get Vauxhall as sponsors, we could call it ‘Conference Vauxhall’ or something

That's a very Cavalier attitude to take. We'll have to spend a good bit of this money on a top quality marketing firm to come up with a distinctive Insignia for the competition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.