Carlisle voted YES - and rightly getting some stick for it on twitter. BTW, who was in Portugal to represent this fans' owned football club of ours? #hasnothingchanged
Re. "who was in Portugal to represent this fans' owned football club of ours?" - presumably, members of the Football Club board, who have been appointed by the Trust board with this as one of their responsibilities; with the Trust board having been democratically elected by the clubs owners (Trust members) to, amongst other responsibilities, appoint the Football Club board.
Exeter City issued a statement this morning defending their decision to support the changes and said 'an overwhelming majority,' of clubs voted to support them.
@Keith_Allens_Wig As someone stated earlier, they are probably thinking of a way to "polish this turd!" before releasing a statement. I look forward to this presentation without holding my breath.
The only thing that should influence this vote is what is in it for us. I can't see us winning it so the prize pot is academic. The gates will not be swelled one jot at the chance of seeing the Watford U21 team etc, in fact it will have a negative impact IMHO. As usual I cannot see anyone apart from the football elite getting anything out of this.
If we want to be someone's bitches then maybe ask us first before lubing up.
On the topic of "why in Portugal? ", I have heard of a (teachers union, I think though don't quote me as fact), having a conference out there once. It was justified on the grounds that it was cheaper to fly everyone out there & back on sleazy jet, put them up in the conference hotel than it was to hold a similar size event in the UK?
Alternatively could it have been a away of Ivor getting out there to his villa on FL expenses?
I'm sure when they brought out that "5th division" idea, the talk was about reducing games.
So to create more games in this cup seems an odd change. Especially when the format was reduced years ago to cull the group stage.
Not to mention the instant nature, most changes in format seem to be planned years ahead.
I do suspect that adding a few matches to this competition now could have been, at least partly, a deliberate advance move to provide additional justification for the "we need five divisions with a reduced number of teams in each to reduce fixture congestion" argument next year.
That would seem to be the only way that implementing the group stage fits with reducing fixture congestion.
Uncle T : I think you are mistaken? "members of the Football Club (FC) board, who have been appointed by the Trust board..." Some members of the FC board are appointed by the FC board itself, and NOT by the Trust Board.
So, Trust appoints AH. AH appoints person A. Person A goes to sunny Portugal and votes on this kind of issue. Not exactly the same as the Trust having direct control. Subtle, I agree - but it's different to what you described.
Anyway - I honestly don't know who was there representing us? Can someone in the know please confirm? Thanks
This was the Exeter statement explaining why they voted yes, follows a bit of a pattern that others have used, so dare say if we get round to issuing a statement, it will be along the same lines.
Don't really buy the valuable experience line for "our" kids - its probably one game for goodness sakes, and also don't buy the great experience for fans at a premier ground - honestly who is going to bother to travel to a 90% empty ground to see a match against kids whose primary objective is not necessarily to win.
Fundamentally this is about money for a tournament on its last legs. To be fair its hard to see boycotts working when substantial proportions of the fans skipped the games before semi final stage anyway.
Does put even more of a damper on it though, honestly cant see me being bothered to brave snowdrifts and wild feral black pudding by travelling all the way north to Exeter on a cold weekday night for a group game.
time for a revamp and get rid of the League Cup too?
Not sure it really matters exactly who represented the club at the meeting, the stance to be taken will no doubt have been agreed with the rest of the board first. I strongly hope that the Trust Board will have been consulted as well - would, in my opinion, be serious negligence on their part if not.
Read the Exeter statement with interest - particularly this segment "The vast majority of clubs of both EFL League One and League Two voted in favour of the proposal for a strictly one-year pilot scheme for the 2016/17 season. Concerns were voiced by many clubs that the competition would fold if it does not react and make improvements. Many clubs struggle to break-even, and some stated they would withdraw from the competition if it wasn’t boosted. If the new format does not work, it will not be renewed".
Latest on the way clubs voted for those interested:
Clubs that voted for changes:
League 1
Chesterfield
Northampton Town
Oxford United
Peterborough United
Scunthorpe United
Southend United
Walsall
League 2
Blackpool
Carlisle United
Colchester United
Exeter City
Grimsby Town
Notts County
Stevenage
Clubs that are yet to issue a statement:
League 1
Bolton Wanders
Bradford City
Bury
Charlton Athletic
Coventry City
Gillingham
Millwall
MK Franchise
Oldham Athletic
Rochdale
Sheffield United
Shrewsbury Town
Swindon Town
League 2
Barnet
Cambridge United
Cheltenham Town
Colchester United
Crawley Town
Crewe Alexandra
Doncaster Rovers
Leyton Orient
Mansfield Town
Newport County
Plymouth Argyle
Wycombe Wanderers
Yeovil Town
Clubs that voted against changes:
League 1
AFC Wimbledon
Bristol Rovers
Port Vale
Fleetwood Town
League 2
Accrington Stanley
Hartlepool United
Luton Town
Portsmouth
Morecambe
"Papers related to this competition were circulated late on and were only available to the three Grimsby Town board members attending the conference while in Portugal.
"The proposals and rule changes for this meeting contained insufficient information to form a clear judgment from the papers alone.
"John Fenty personally asked the CEO of the EFL; 'Is this the thin end of the wedge regarding progressive Premier League involvement in the wider competition?"
"Assurances were received that this was not the case and it was stressed that there is no movement to introduce Premier League teams into the new configuration being debated, which suggests the introduction of a new division to make four leagues of 20."
Which appears to get the trust board off the hook.
incidentally while at times the "we're a fan owned club, we should decide/be told" mantra is a little over-done, it is disappointing that half the clubs have made statement communicating their thinking but not us.
Supporters have certain big decisions reserved to them but otherwise elect representatives who in turn appoint and hold to account people to run the club on their behalf. A far as I am aware, Supporter ownership was never intended to be on the Ebbsfleet model.
Comments
Carlisle voted YES - and rightly getting some stick for it on twitter. BTW, who was in Portugal to represent this fans' owned football club of ours? #hasnothingchanged
Re. "who was in Portugal to represent this fans' owned football club of ours?" - presumably, members of the Football Club board, who have been appointed by the Trust board with this as one of their responsibilities; with the Trust board having been democratically elected by the clubs owners (Trust members) to, amongst other responsibilities, appoint the Football Club board.
Exeter City issued a statement this morning defending their decision to support the changes and said 'an overwhelming majority,' of clubs voted to support them.
If @Wwfc2015_finds something besides Wycombe Wanderers, its manager and its players to be rubbish...things are getting serious.
Still awaiting a statement from our own club, poor communication as ever
@Keith_Allens_Wig As someone stated earlier, they are probably thinking of a way to "polish this turd!" before releasing a statement. I look forward to this presentation without holding my breath.
On another issue...how come the English Football League annual meeting was held in Portugal?
Would be a good time to announce a signing methinks.
And then have a little 2 line statement about why we voted yes!
Give the goons a signing, they won't give a toss about this then.
More spin than a launderette happening right now in the WW offices. Probably trying to finalise a signing (any signing) to hide it behind...
Hey if it's Sam Saunders they can vote for what they like.
The only thing that should influence this vote is what is in it for us. I can't see us winning it so the prize pot is academic. The gates will not be swelled one jot at the chance of seeing the Watford U21 team etc, in fact it will have a negative impact IMHO. As usual I cannot see anyone apart from the football elite getting anything out of this.
If we want to be someone's bitches then maybe ask us first before lubing up.
On the topic of "why in Portugal? ", I have heard of a (teachers union, I think though don't quote me as fact), having a conference out there once. It was justified on the grounds that it was cheaper to fly everyone out there & back on sleazy jet, put them up in the conference hotel than it was to hold a similar size event in the UK?
Alternatively could it have been a away of Ivor getting out there to his villa on FL expenses?
I'm sure when they brought out that "5th division" idea, the talk was about reducing games.
So to create more games in this cup seems an odd change. Especially when the format was reduced years ago to cull the group stage.
Not to mention the instant nature, most changes in format seem to be planned years ahead.
I do suspect that adding a few matches to this competition now could have been, at least partly, a deliberate advance move to provide additional justification for the "we need five divisions with a reduced number of teams in each to reduce fixture congestion" argument next year.
That would seem to be the only way that implementing the group stage fits with reducing fixture congestion.
The authorities kept this all under wraps and only told officials of the clubs as they knew exactly what the fans reaction would be.
This way they got to do their sales pitch without any dissenting voices
Whilst on the topic of "Portugal" does anyone know if discussions on 3G Pitches were on the Agenda?
3G is old hat I think.
Uncle T : I think you are mistaken? "members of the Football Club (FC) board, who have been appointed by the Trust board..." Some members of the FC board are appointed by the FC board itself, and NOT by the Trust Board.
So, Trust appoints AH. AH appoints person A. Person A goes to sunny Portugal and votes on this kind of issue. Not exactly the same as the Trust having direct control. Subtle, I agree - but it's different to what you described.
Anyway - I honestly don't know who was there representing us? Can someone in the know please confirm? Thanks
This was the Exeter statement explaining why they voted yes, follows a bit of a pattern that others have used, so dare say if we get round to issuing a statement, it will be along the same lines.
http://www.exetercityfc.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-efl-trophy-3141588.aspx
Don't really buy the valuable experience line for "our" kids - its probably one game for goodness sakes, and also don't buy the great experience for fans at a premier ground - honestly who is going to bother to travel to a 90% empty ground to see a match against kids whose primary objective is not necessarily to win.
Fundamentally this is about money for a tournament on its last legs. To be fair its hard to see boycotts working when substantial proportions of the fans skipped the games before semi final stage anyway.
Does put even more of a damper on it though, honestly cant see me being bothered to brave snowdrifts and wild feral black pudding by travelling all the way north to Exeter on a cold weekday night for a group game.
time for a revamp and get rid of the League Cup too?
@wandering_jock It was Ivor Beeks, according to this tweet from the Bristol Rovers chairman:
Not sure it really matters exactly who represented the club at the meeting, the stance to be taken will no doubt have been agreed with the rest of the board first. I strongly hope that the Trust Board will have been consulted as well - would, in my opinion, be serious negligence on their part if not.
Read the Exeter statement with interest - particularly this segment "The vast majority of clubs of both EFL League One and League Two voted in favour of the proposal for a strictly one-year pilot scheme for the 2016/17 season. Concerns were voiced by many clubs that the competition would fold if it does not react and make improvements. Many clubs struggle to break-even, and some stated they would withdraw from the competition if it wasn’t boosted. If the new format does not work, it will not be renewed".
"If the new format does not work, it will not be renewed".
Exactly! And who will make this decision: Premier League clubs, our Board, or our fans?
It's not like Beeks has history of not considering fans opinion, is it
Ivor Berks, out in Portugal, voting to allow premier league B teams into a football league competition
No wonder the club statement is taking so long if they're trying to spin that!
Latest on the way clubs voted for those interested:
Clubs that voted for changes:
League 1
Chesterfield
Northampton Town
Oxford United
Peterborough United
Scunthorpe United
Southend United
Walsall
League 2
Blackpool
Carlisle United
Colchester United
Exeter City
Grimsby Town
Notts County
Stevenage
Clubs that are yet to issue a statement:
League 1
Bolton Wanders
Bradford City
Bury
Charlton Athletic
Coventry City
Gillingham
Millwall
MK Franchise
Oldham Athletic
Rochdale
Sheffield United
Shrewsbury Town
Swindon Town
League 2
Barnet
Cambridge United
Cheltenham Town
Colchester United
Crawley Town
Crewe Alexandra
Doncaster Rovers
Leyton Orient
Mansfield Town
Newport County
Plymouth Argyle
Wycombe Wanderers
Yeovil Town
Clubs that voted against changes:
League 1
AFC Wimbledon
Bristol Rovers
Port Vale
Fleetwood Town
League 2
Accrington Stanley
Hartlepool United
Luton Town
Portsmouth
Morecambe
Interesting snippet from the Grimsby statement.
"Papers related to this competition were circulated late on and were only available to the three Grimsby Town board members attending the conference while in Portugal.
"The proposals and rule changes for this meeting contained insufficient information to form a clear judgment from the papers alone.
"John Fenty personally asked the CEO of the EFL; 'Is this the thin end of the wedge regarding progressive Premier League involvement in the wider competition?"
"Assurances were received that this was not the case and it was stressed that there is no movement to introduce Premier League teams into the new configuration being debated, which suggests the introduction of a new division to make four leagues of 20."
Which appears to get the trust board off the hook.
incidentally while at times the "we're a fan owned club, we should decide/be told" mantra is a little over-done, it is disappointing that half the clubs have made statement communicating their thinking but not us.
@DevC Supporters don't decide on anything do they?
Supporters have certain big decisions reserved to them but otherwise elect representatives who in turn appoint and hold to account people to run the club on their behalf. A far as I am aware, Supporter ownership was never intended to be on the Ebbsfleet model.
We have made a statement stating that we will be making a statement once we know what to say.