|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 16, 2016 11:03:15 GMT
Plans for a shake-up of English football to create 100 teams in five divisions have been cancelled after talks between the English Football League and the Football Association broke down.
The EFL said in May it wanted to create an extra division and have 20 teams in each from 2019-20.
The plans required the English football authorities to find additional weekends for league football.
The FA says it is no longer viable.
The EFL, which currently has 72 teams - 24 each in the Championship, League One and League Two - said the move would tackle fixture congestion and boost the finances of its members.
The rescheduling would have involved moving FA Cup fixtures into midweek slots, but the FA has informed the EFL it is no longer prepared to consider such a move following a new international broadcasting deal.
"If the weekend slots are not available, then there is simply no way we can meet the financial conditions as outlined at the very outset," said EFL chief executive Shaun Harvey.
"The stance the FA has adopted has brought the discussions to a premature end, before fully understanding what the financial outcome from the creation of a new distribution model could be. "
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 11:15:06 GMT
Surely this is less, rather than more?
|
|
strung out
Paul Hardyman
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 758 
|
Post by strung out on Nov 16, 2016 11:18:51 GMT
This is excellent news for all football fans. Time for Shaun Harvey to go now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 11:45:20 GMT
Shaun Harvey makes my s**t itch.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 13:12:11 GMT
Surely this is less, rather than more? You'd think, wouldn't you: leagues of 20 need 8 fewer fixture slots than leagues of 24. It smacks of a nonsense explanation, which prompts a thought about what's really behind the change of mind and not being said. Is it overly cynical to note, at this stage, the way the experiment elsewhere with Premiership B teams has (not) worked and been received? (not this proposal apparently ever involved that, oh no, not at all, as if, perish the thought). |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 16, 2016 17:11:50 GMT
Excellent news hopefully Shaun Harvey is kicked out without undue delay
|
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Nov 16, 2016 20:20:48 GMT
Excellent news hopefully Shaun Harvey is kicked out without undue delay I don't know about the due process for unseating the man, but there needs to be a concerted effort from clubs and fans to get rid of this buffoon who tried to kill our game. |
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Nov 16, 2016 21:39:48 GMT
I was at the Football Fans Summit organised by the FSF at Wembley earlier this year and heard Ian Lenagan speak. Sadly, at a time when the Premier is raking in billions and the Championship recognised as the home of 'proper' or 'exciting' football the officials at the EFL are simply not good enough. www.efl.com/global/eflboard.aspxTalking about the EFL Trophy fiasco, Lenagan was already hiding behind the old chestnut "...well the Chairmen voted for it..." and had little charisma or presence. Looking at the EFL board profiles the governance should be better, yet it is so poor and lacking in considered innovation, rather like the FA. At least the EFL can organise an AGM, well at least they can book a venue in Portugal. |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 16, 2016 23:35:07 GMT
The plans required the English football authorities to find additional weekends for league football.
I can't help thinking that this may have been the key flaw in the plan since it would surely have required finding some way for the FA to amend the orbit of the planet......
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 17, 2016 8:08:47 GMT
Surely this is less, rather than more? You'd think, wouldn't you: leagues of 20 need 8 fewer fixture slots than leagues of 24. It smacks of a nonsense explanation, which prompts a thought about what's really behind the change of mind and not being said. Is it overly cynical to note, at this stage, the way the experiment elsewhere with Premiership B teams has (not) worked and been received? (not this proposal apparently ever involved that, oh no, not at all, as if, perish the thought). Harvey is definitely a pillock and his explanations were nonsense
However whatever the rights and wrongs of the 100 club system, the EFL are right (and it is their responsibility) to look at the future of the leagues and put proposals forward to be voted on even if keeping things the same wins out
Just seems they have ideas but no real thought has gone into any of them
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Nov 17, 2016 9:07:46 GMT
You'd think, wouldn't you: leagues of 20 need 8 fewer fixture slots than leagues of 24. It smacks of a nonsense explanation, which prompts a thought about what's really behind the change of mind and not being said. Is it overly cynical to note, at this stage, the way the experiment elsewhere with Premiership B teams has (not) worked and been received? (not this proposal apparently ever involved that, oh no, not at all, as if, perish the thought). Harvey is definitely a pillock and his explanations were nonsense
However whatever the rights and wrongs of the 100 club system, the EFL are right (and it is their responsibility) to look at the future of the leagues and put proposals forward to be voted on even if keeping things the same wins out
Just seems they have ideas but no real thought has gone into any of them
Fair do, it is the job of any organisation to put forward ideas, and I agree and posted earlier, they need to be considered ones. Had the new structure of the EFL Trophy been floated with supporters the major embarrassment and resentment could have been avoided. Obviously the EFL had not consulted the big Premier sides either. The new league structure would have included, I believe, regionalisation which may not have been overly popular either. I am sure we know bosses who think they know everything introduce a 'bright' (but flawed) idea and then stick with it no matter what. If workers, and this is reflected in supporters, own an idea or have been consulted then things tend to be smoother. It is hard to understand why chairmen, gladly not ours, voted for the new Trophy structure. What we do not know is how much pressure came down from the FA to include the U21s, or whether the EFL was trying to ingratiate itself, which, let's face it, is pointless with the FA. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 10:42:45 GMT
You'd think, wouldn't you: leagues of 20 need 8 fewer fixture slots than leagues of 24. It smacks of a nonsense explanation, which prompts a thought about what's really behind the change of mind and not being said. Is it overly cynical to note, at this stage, the way the experiment elsewhere with Premiership B teams has (not) worked and been received? (not this proposal apparently ever involved that, oh no, not at all, as if, perish the thought). Harvey is definitely a pillock and his explanations were nonsense
However whatever the rights and wrongs of the 100 club system, the EFL are right (and it is their responsibility) to look at the future of the leagues and put proposals forward to be voted on even if keeping things the same wins out
Just seems they have ideas but no real thought has gone into any of them
I've got nothing against the concept of 100 clubs or 5 divisions. I think there's a lot that could be done to give a bunk up to well run lower down (all the way down) clubs rather than have them run up a down escalator and ape the (hugely financially bereft) top flight. The thing is, what's coming out of the league isn't setting that objective and innovating to deliver it. The Trophy change seems to have no benefit at all for anyone other than the top clubs who want to give their stock-piled players a run out - and the argument that it's good for the England team (which is a different issue altogether) is farcical. The 5 division plan just seemed like an idea looking for a justification, which is worrying: either it's tinkering for the sake of it, or it's got a reason that dare not be spoken, and either way ought to have been floated as a full package - why fewer games would be better and how any additional clubs would be the next in the established queue and why that would be a good thing. That doesn't seem an unreasonable expectation of the people running things. The league gives the impression of being contemptuous of rather than for its clubs and fans. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 17, 2016 11:55:24 GMT
You'd think, wouldn't you: leagues of 20 need 8 fewer fixture slots than leagues of 24. It smacks of a nonsense explanation, which prompts a thought about what's really behind the change of mind and not being said. Is it overly cynical to note, at this stage, the way the experiment elsewhere with Premiership B teams has (not) worked and been received? (not this proposal apparently ever involved that, oh no, not at all, as if, perish the thought). Harvey is definitely a pillock and his explanations were nonsense
However whatever the rights and wrongs of the 100 club system, the EFL are right (and it is their responsibility) to look at the future of the leagues and put proposals forward to be voted on even if keeping things the same wins out
Just seems they have ideas but no real thought has gone into any of them
Must be a bit of a blow to you after enthusiasticly supporting the idea. It was crap put forward by crap people and full of holes but some still followed it unquestioningly. |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 17, 2016 13:56:16 GMT
Harvey is definitely a pillock and his explanations were nonsense
However whatever the rights and wrongs of the 100 club system, the EFL are right (and it is their responsibility) to look at the future of the leagues and put proposals forward to be voted on even if keeping things the same wins out
Just seems they have ideas but no real thought has gone into any of them
Must be a bit of a blow to you after enthusiasticly supporting the idea. It was crap put forward by crap people and full of holes but some still followed it unquestioningly. I said the idea of 5 lots of 20 was not inherently bad and I wasn't necessarily against the idea
I also said it should be discussed, not just dismissed out of hand by rabid fans who think the FL has never changed. The comment the EFL are right (and it is their responsibility) to look at the future of the leagues and put proposals forward to be voted on even if keeping things the same wins out also still stands
I can also maintain that view and still think the Chairman of the FL is a dick
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 14:03:48 GMT
The idea of 38 League games instead of 46 is inherently bad, though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 15:51:47 GMT
The idea of 38 League games instead of 46 is inherently bad, though. Is it, though? 46 legs good, 38 legs bad? What's so good about 46? Are there arguments in favour of fewer (pain in the harris) midweek games? Are there arguments for more, in which case maybe make it 50 or 54. It seems a pretty arbitrary figure to me. I'm not saying it should change or is even an issue in itself, just that if a good case can be made that would result in more or fewer games, and isn't outdone by reasons against, I wouldn't be against it because either 46 has some mystical property or change is a bad thing. I'd like to think circumstances and thinking have moved on from the 1950s or whenever '46 games' came in (ease of travel certainly has, but to the same extent we're not all 'local' for midweek games), at least to the point of not holding that figure to be sacrosanct (which is all I think PP has said, btw, not unreasonably). I just don't think a case has been made, or that the league has sought to make a case on the grounds of club finance, quality of the game, player welfare, fan experience or whatever - which is a shame because it's what they should be doing. Quite what is driving their innovative brainwaves remains unclear. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 16:22:40 GMT
The idea of 38 League games instead of 46 is inherently bad, though. Is it, though? 46 legs good, 38 legs bad? What's so good about 46? Are there arguments in favour of fewer (pain in the harris) midweek games? Are there arguments for more, in which case maybe make it 50 or 54. It seems a pretty arbitrary figure to me. I enjoy going to football, therefore I'd rather have more to go to rather than less. |
|
