Relegation

[Snowflake Royal]

So is the Premier League just the same as the old first division? Hence, our 106 record is valid for all professional leagues in England, rather than just the arbitrary decision to say it's only valid for 3 of them?

It's basically the same, yes. First Division and PL titles are all counted as one and the same.

It's technically slightly different as it's no longer over seen by the FL. But it's basically just a technicality.

106 starts getting complicated that when you factor in points per game a couple of PL teams have done better without breaking it.

I think more pertinent is the fact that Lincoln also managed 106 points if their results had been 3 points for a win.

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

[Elm Park Kid]

It's basically the same, yes. First Division and PL titles are all counted as one and the same.

It's technically slightly different as it's no longer over seen by the FL. But it's basically just a technicality.

106 starts getting complicated that when you factor in points per game a couple of PL teams have done better without breaking it.

I think more pertinent is the fact that Lincoln also managed 106 points if their results had been 3 points for a win.

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

It's a fair discussion.

My viewpoint is that, even if it's down to more games and points for a win, the fact we've achieved the highest points total in the professional game in England is something to celebrate and be proud of. Though if a PL team were somehow able to break that total, despite the fewer games, then we would have to graciously accept that we no longer hold the 'record'.

[Lower West]

I think more pertinent is the fact that Lincoln also managed 106 points if their results had been 3 points for a win.

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

It's a fair discussion.

My viewpoint is that, even if it's down to more games and points for a win, the fact we've achieved the highest points total in the professional game in England is something to celebrate and be proud of. Though if a PL team were somehow able to break that total, despite the fewer games, then we would have to graciously accept that we no longer hold the 'record'.

Premiership has a maximum of 114 points. Only 8 points can be dropped. Somewhat different to a margin of 32 in the Championship.

[SCIAG]

I think more pertinent is the fact that Lincoln also managed 106 points if their results had been 3 points for a win.

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

It's a fair discussion.

My viewpoint is that, even if it's down to more games and points for a win, the fact we've achieved the highest points total in the professional game in England is something to celebrate and be proud of. Though if a PL team were somehow able to break that total, despite the fewer games, then we would have to graciously accept that we no longer hold the 'record'.

It should simply be considered a record for the highest division of the Football League.

If someone got 107 points in League 2 (or even the National League, which is increasingly professional) I wouldn’t consider that “breaking our record” because it is at a lower standard.

[Simmops]

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

It's a fair discussion.

My viewpoint is that, even if it's down to more games and points for a win, the fact we've achieved the highest points total in the professional game in England is something to celebrate and be proud of. Though if a PL team were somehow able to break that total, despite the fewer games, then we would have to graciously accept that we no longer hold the 'record'.

It should simply be considered a record for the highest division of the Football League.

If someone got 107 points in League 2 (or even the National League, which is increasingly professional) I wouldn’t consider that “breaking our record” because it is at a lower standard.

LOL what?

That is stupid sorry. I am sure Man City do not consider us to have the record then because it is a worse standard and more games.

A record is a record. You cannot move the goalposts.

[muirinho]

It's basically the same, yes. First Division and PL titles are all counted as one and the same.

It's technically slightly different as it's no longer over seen by the FL. But it's basically just a technicality.

106 starts getting complicated that when you factor in points per game a couple of PL teams have done better without breaking it.

I think more pertinent is the fact that Lincoln also managed 106 points if their results had been 3 points for a win.

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

Lincoln got 32 wins 10 draws, 4 losses - 74 points. Or 106 for 3 points a win.

Our 106 season, we got 31 wins, 13 draws, 2 losses. At 2 points a win, that's 75 points.

So one way of calculating, records are equal, the other way, we're on top. On average, still our record

[Fox Talbot]

Doncaster 1947 W33 D6 L3 - that’s 105 points on 3 points for a win basis from just 42 games. FWIW.

[Snowflake Royal]

When was Lincoln's season?

[Greatwesternline]

I think more pertinent is the fact that Lincoln also managed 106 points if their results had been 3 points for a win.

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

Lincoln got 32 wins 10 draws, 4 losses - 74 points. Or 106 for 3 points a win.

Our 106 season, we got 31 wins, 13 draws, 2 losses. At 2 points a win, that's 75 points.

So one way of calculating, records are equal, the other way, we're on top. On average, still our record

You could argue that knowing its only 2 points for a win would mean clubs settle for more draws, so it is harder for Lincoln. I'm not making that argument though,

[Snowball]

I think more pertinent is the fact that Lincoln also managed 106 points if their results had been 3 points for a win.

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

Lincoln got 32 wins 10 draws, 4 losses - 74 points. Or 106 for 3 points a win.

Our 106 season, we got 31 wins, 13 draws, 2 losses. At 2 points a win, that's 75 points.

So one way of calculating, records are equal, the other way, we're on top. On average, still our record

But, had they played in a competition where 3 points for a win was available
they may well have lost or drawn more games because the imperative for
both sides to WIN has been changed.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying a side would have won the
league if it was still 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw.

I used to live not too far from Elland Road during the Revie era, go with a Leeds mate.
Then win at home, get 0-0 away was considered the "perfect" way to win a league.

You can't realistically compare teams when the rules are radically different.

[Sutekh]

I seem to recall a lot of chat at the time about clubs under 2pts for a win and it still being us, but don't remember now.

Cba to look it up now.

Lincoln got 32 wins 10 draws, 4 losses - 74 points. Or 106 for 3 points a win.

Our 106 season, we got 31 wins, 13 draws, 2 losses. At 2 points a win, that's 75 points.

So one way of calculating, records are equal, the other way, we're on top. On average, still our record

But, had they played in a competition where 3 points for a win was available
they may well have lost or drawn more games because the imperative for
both sides to WIN has been changed.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying a side would have won the
league if it was still 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw.

I used to live not too far from Elland Road during the Revie era, go with a Leeds mate.
Then win at home, get 0-0 away was considered the "perfect" way to win a league.

You can't realistically compare teams when the rules are radically different.

The only way to compare define the best league side ever is to calculate a team’s ppg across a season. Under that scenario I would expect Reading “106” to struggle to make the top 5 - however, under that formula, Reading may have the current honour of being the best tier 2 side ever.

However 106 is still the largest number of points any professional league team has accrued over 1 season therefore, presuming the aforementioned best ever at tier 2 is correct, there are two aspects of the “record” to monitor.

[muirinho]

Lincoln got 32 wins 10 draws, 4 losses - 74 points. Or 106 for 3 points a win.

Our 106 season, we got 31 wins, 13 draws, 2 losses. At 2 points a win, that's 75 points.

So one way of calculating, records are equal, the other way, we're on top. On average, still our record

But, had they played in a competition where 3 points for a win was available
they may well have lost or drawn more games because the imperative for
both sides to WIN has been changed.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying a side would have won the
league if it was still 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw.

I used to live not too far from Elland Road during the Revie era, go with a Leeds mate.
Then win at home, get 0-0 away was considered the "perfect" way to win a league.

You can't realistically compare teams when the rules are radically different.

The only way to compare define the best league side ever is to calculate a team’s ppg across a season. Under that scenario I would expect Reading “106” to struggle to make the top 5 - however, under that formula, Reading may have the current honour of being the best tier 2 side ever.

However 106 is still the largest number of points any professional league team has accrued over 1 season therefore, presuming the aforementioned best ever at tier 2 is correct, there are two aspects of the “record” to monitor.

Note Lincoln's best points score was Division 4 (75/76 season) - so Tier 4
Doncaster's record was in Division Three (North) - so Tier 3 (ish)

So out and out record by ppg as well as by points for Tier 2.

[Snowball]

Lincoln got 32 wins 10 draws, 4 losses - 74 points. Or 106 for 3 points a win.

Our 106 season, we got 31 wins, 13 draws, 2 losses. At 2 points a win, that's 75 points.

So one way of calculating, records are equal, the other way, we're on top. On average, still our record

But, had they played in a competition where 3 points for a win was available
they may well have lost or drawn more games because the imperative for
both sides to WIN has been changed.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying a side would have won the
league if it was still 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw.

I used to live not too far from Elland Road during the Revie era, go with a Leeds mate.
Then win at home, get 0-0 away was considered the "perfect" way to win a league.

You can't realistically compare teams when the rules are radically different.

The only way to compare define the best league side ever is to calculate a team’s ppg across a season. Under that scenario I would expect Reading “106” to struggle to make the top 5 - however, under that formula, Reading may have the current honour of being the best tier 2 side ever.

However 106 is still the largest number of points any professional league team has accrued over 1 season therefore, presuming the aforementioned best ever at tier 2 is correct, there are two aspects of the “record” to monitor.

Sure, but let me rephrase my point:


Say they brought in NINE points for a win, 12 points for an away win,
minus five for a 0-0 away draw and minus 2 for a home 0-0 draw.


The pressure to ignore a draw would be overwhelming, and winning would be everything.

1-0 down, there would be no point in "hanging in" and hoping to snatch a late equaliser

Football would turn into basketball and comparison with the old days would be meaningless.


All we can do is state facts. Reading have the =highest points total ever in the Championship.

That's an utter, indisputable fact

[Mid Sussex Royal]

When was Lincoln's season?

I believe 1975/76, when Graham Taylor was manager.

We were promoted too that season in third from the same league (4th tier) - in the days of Mr Friday

[Snowflake Royal]

When was Lincoln's season?

I believe 1975/76, when Graham Taylor was manager.

We were promoted too that season in third from the same league (4th tier) - in the days of Mr Friday

Cheers, wondered whether it might be pre-war because I don't remember them being mentioned before, but I do recall Donny.

[Royal_jimmy]

We are definitely not staying up with this squad without adding to it.

[Zip]

We are definitely not staying up with this squad without adding to it.

I think we will stay up with the current squad but if we let Puscas go we could go into the new season with no available senior strikers which would be ridiculous. Let’s see what the next five weeks brings but reinforcements are needed soon.

[Snowflake Royal]

We are definitely not staying up with this squad without adding to it.

Don't listen to Royal_jimmy, he obviously wants us to go down.

[Hound]

Let’s be honest, we’ll certainly add to it one way or another

But yes how the seaosn goes prob depends on who we can bring in

[oldebiscuit]

When was Lincoln's season?

I believe 1975/76, when Graham Taylor was manager.

We were promoted too that season in third from the same league (4th tier) - in the days of Mr Friday

And their team contained a certain Ian Branfoot.