It went from a cup you could easily be out of within 1 game, be it round 1, or if you'd had a bye and then knocked out round 2, to suddenly 3 games minimum.
That is a decent increase.
Not to mention more teams being in there, meaning more games later on.
I doubt anyone would be too disappointed with it disappearing.
If they did take the money back out, and kept it at 3 games minimum it'd have next to no appeal.
They may as well let clubs play whatever sides they want. The teams that want to field their kids will most likely get knocked out straight away and not get any prize money and the teams that take it seriously will more likely progress and make a few quid. But let the managers make the decision instead of making it for them.
I really don't see the point in forcing teams to play so many first team regulars. Do they really think we as fans will be more likely to go to the games if we get to see our 'star' players that we see every Saturday anyway?
If you think about it, the current system accidentally favours richer teams. Luton can afford to pay a fine for fielding their kids in the FLT, so do, whereas Wycombe can't, so don't. Luton then gain a competitive advantage for resting their players in these games.
@Malone Companies (perhaps mistakenly) seem willing to invest decent money into this, as did the Premier League. Perhaps rather than more prize money going to clubs, any additional sponsorship or league funding can go towards covering the cost of international travel and accommodation for clubs that make it to the latter stages with fixtures abr
How about something radical. Round 1: 4 teams per group. Played at 1 venue. 30 minutes per game.
A vs B, C vs D. Winners o each game meet in the 'final'. Winner to progress to round 2. Round 2 similar format etc to final at Wembley where again 4 clubs, semi-finals then final all on same day. Haven't done the maths but maybe 4 rounds in total and the equivalent of a 240 minutes football.
Probably be a lot of 0-0s and penalty shootouts though
So from the EFL statement, clubs will have to vote on three options at summer AGM:
This season's format with some minor changes (inc. 16 B teams and more prize money)
Revert to old format
Scrap competition totally
Will be really interesting to see how the club consult with supporters in the time available before the summer vote. I think it's safe to say their vote would go for option 1, so avoiding any such consultation would probably be preferential from their POV.
As if they will drop the league cup! Get real. Back door bribes with finacial rewards. Most of it gets used in paying for the next away tie in hotel and transportation fees anyway, then player bonuses. It's all flawed and we don't need it. If we want to play squad players then join a reserve league.
Good to see that WWFC is to discuss its stance on this competition at the next Fans Council meeting on Thursday 27th April (all welcome to attend), presumably time to be announced separately.
The old direct v representative democracy debate rears its head.
Does fan ownership mean we elect representatives who are then tasked to appoint the clubs management and then hold it to task or dies it mean we ourselves should be consulted. Do we trust the trust board to decide on matters such as these, with an inevitably fuller understanding of club financial position, potential financial benefits of trophy, real advantages and disadvantages re playing staff (games for squad players v tiredness for first teamers) etc etc, or do we have an inevitably more shallow but wider based decision process.
No rights or wrongs. it can be done either way.
For me, from an inevitably ill-informed basis, I cant see the revert to how it was before basis having much merit, so of the options presented it is between retain as is with amendments proposed or scrap it. I suspect given the facts I would conclude the former.
Arguably yes, Peter. Where in principle is the line drawn between "inputting ideas" and making the decision?
hypothetically (and really not sure how many people turn up at a Fan Council so numbers may be wrong), but if club and trust directors decide they prefer option a), they discuss with say 100 fans at fans council and someone calls a vote which is 80% option c) and 20% option a), which option should be followed? Genuine question by the way, not seeking to make a point.
Ever since the referendum last June, I have pondering the issues of direct v representative democracy. In theory the people's will should prevail, yet even if you support the outcome, you must surely despair at the pathetic campaign from both sides and the ill-informed level of many who voted on an important issue. I dont really know the answer.
WWFC is of course much much less important, but I think its an interesting issue too for a fan owned club. How far down the direct democracy line do you go or do you trust those with a better understanding of all the issues to decide issues on your behalf. There isnt a right or wrong answer, but interesting to hear intelligent views on where the line should be drawn.
It is no secret that I dont see fan ownership on balance as int he best interests of the club. But whil;e we are doing it we might as well make it the best it could be.
Rather disappointing but sadly not unexpected that Eric is only capable of a dull personal jibe rather than expressing his view. Ho hum.
I view discussion of the possible voting options in a Fans Forum as similar to an MP canvassing the opinions of their constituents. The board or MP are not obliged to vote with majority opinion if they think it not to be the right thing to vote for, but the opinions of those canvassed may help the board or MP to decide how to vote if they don't have a clear preference one way or the other.
@DevC The best interest for the Club is to remain solvent. It is unlikely that returning to a non members club would ensure that. It is also unlikely that WWFC will attract a likely owner while the Stadium remains in the hands of the Trust. The Members of theTrust however must be certain when they are electing the Board that the candidates are suitable and can be trusted to deliver the necessary skills to retain a successful Football Club.
@DevC there's no need for a vote unless the Trust board decide the issue is serious enough for one. It that case then it's pretty easy to organise a vote for all Trust members, either to make a decision or to get a steer on the views of the members.
This particular matter, Peter and others, is obviously relatively unimportant, not least because whatever WWFC decide there are 47 other votes that we cannot influence.
Am I right in understanding that what you are asking for is an information exchange whereby the club managers explain their thinking, listen to views if the supporters who attend and then make their decision.
I have no objection to that, although if the mood of the supporters was overwhelmingly in favour of option a) say at the start and still was at the end but the club managers still went with option b), I can see before long the supporters getting a bit pissed off and thinking what was the point of that then.
That is very different to at the other extreme a meeting being held, the cub managers having their say and then a vote held and the club managers being mandated to do a certain thing, even if that is against their better judgement.
The latter has to be in place for the most critical decisions (should we sell, should we move) obviously but am I right in understanding that your vision of supporter ownership is broadly in the former camp - we elect representatives, they consult, they then decide.
Personally I wouldn't be annoyed if the club consulted and then decided contrary to my views, as long as they justified and explained the decision.
The important part is the involvement of supporters within some decision making processes, otherwise you basically have the same setup as a private owned clubs but without the money.
Thank you. I think I understand your aspirations better. I assume the elected trust board are fairly fully engaged and consulted with the running of the club if not day to day matters.
Major decisions (sale, relocation, etc) are on a vote. They will be rare.
Otherwise a bit of communication and feeling that you have been listened to if not agreed with.
@DevC basically saying that "you know where we are if you need us" isn't enough.
I think the odd "we are looking at this, is there anyone in the membership with some expertise who might want to get involved?" or "here's an on-line vote for members to gauge opinion to see if we're on the same page on this" is reasonable enough, like you say.
Comments
It went from a cup you could easily be out of within 1 game, be it round 1, or if you'd had a bye and then knocked out round 2, to suddenly 3 games minimum.
That is a decent increase.
Not to mention more teams being in there, meaning more games later on.
I doubt anyone would be too disappointed with it disappearing.
If they did take the money back out, and kept it at 3 games minimum it'd have next to no appeal.
They may as well let clubs play whatever sides they want. The teams that want to field their kids will most likely get knocked out straight away and not get any prize money and the teams that take it seriously will more likely progress and make a few quid. But let the managers make the decision instead of making it for them.
I really don't see the point in forcing teams to play so many first team regulars. Do they really think we as fans will be more likely to go to the games if we get to see our 'star' players that we see every Saturday anyway?
If you think about it, the current system accidentally favours richer teams. Luton can afford to pay a fine for fielding their kids in the FLT, so do, whereas Wycombe can't, so don't. Luton then gain a competitive advantage for resting their players in these games.
Wycombe don't have any kids
You know what I mean Dev.
@Malone Companies (perhaps mistakenly) seem willing to invest decent money into this, as did the Premier League. Perhaps rather than more prize money going to clubs, any additional sponsorship or league funding can go towards covering the cost of international travel and accommodation for clubs that make it to the latter stages with fixtures abr
How about something radical. Round 1: 4 teams per group. Played at 1 venue. 30 minutes per game.
A vs B, C vs D. Winners o each game meet in the 'final'. Winner to progress to round 2. Round 2 similar format etc to final at Wembley where again 4 clubs, semi-finals then final all on same day. Haven't done the maths but maybe 4 rounds in total and the equivalent of a 240 minutes football.
Probably be a lot of 0-0s and penalty shootouts though
So from the EFL statement, clubs will have to vote on three options at summer AGM:
Will be really interesting to see how the club consult with supporters in the time available before the summer vote. I think it's safe to say their vote would go for option 1, so avoiding any such consultation would probably be preferential from their POV.
As if they will drop the league cup! Get real. Back door bribes with finacial rewards. Most of it gets used in paying for the next away tie in hotel and transportation fees anyway, then player bonuses. It's all flawed and we don't need it. If we want to play squad players then join a reserve league.
Good to see that WWFC is to discuss its stance on this competition at the next Fans Council meeting on Thursday 27th April (all welcome to attend), presumably time to be announced separately.
http://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/clubs-meet-to-discuss-future-of-checkatrade-trophy-3670972.aspx
The old direct v representative democracy debate rears its head.
Does fan ownership mean we elect representatives who are then tasked to appoint the clubs management and then hold it to task or dies it mean we ourselves should be consulted. Do we trust the trust board to decide on matters such as these, with an inevitably fuller understanding of club financial position, potential financial benefits of trophy, real advantages and disadvantages re playing staff (games for squad players v tiredness for first teamers) etc etc, or do we have an inevitably more shallow but wider based decision process.
No rights or wrongs. it can be done either way.
For me, from an inevitably ill-informed basis, I cant see the revert to how it was before basis having much merit, so of the options presented it is between retain as is with amendments proposed or scrap it. I suspect given the facts I would conclude the former.
I think supporter ownership requires supporters to input ideas and suggestions so that the representatives can make informed decisions.
Great to see this happen.
Arguably yes, Peter. Where in principle is the line drawn between "inputting ideas" and making the decision?
hypothetically (and really not sure how many people turn up at a Fan Council so numbers may be wrong), but if club and trust directors decide they prefer option a), they discuss with say 100 fans at fans council and someone calls a vote which is 80% option c) and 20% option a), which option should be followed? Genuine question by the way, not seeking to make a point.
That last sentence is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read
Ever since the referendum last June, I have pondering the issues of direct v representative democracy. In theory the people's will should prevail, yet even if you support the outcome, you must surely despair at the pathetic campaign from both sides and the ill-informed level of many who voted on an important issue. I dont really know the answer.
WWFC is of course much much less important, but I think its an interesting issue too for a fan owned club. How far down the direct democracy line do you go or do you trust those with a better understanding of all the issues to decide issues on your behalf. There isnt a right or wrong answer, but interesting to hear intelligent views on where the line should be drawn.
It is no secret that I dont see fan ownership on balance as int he best interests of the club. But whil;e we are doing it we might as well make it the best it could be.
Rather disappointing but sadly not unexpected that Eric is only capable of a dull personal jibe rather than expressing his view. Ho hum.
I view discussion of the possible voting options in a Fans Forum as similar to an MP canvassing the opinions of their constituents. The board or MP are not obliged to vote with majority opinion if they think it not to be the right thing to vote for, but the opinions of those canvassed may help the board or MP to decide how to vote if they don't have a clear preference one way or the other.
@DevC The best interest for the Club is to remain solvent. It is unlikely that returning to a non members club would ensure that. It is also unlikely that WWFC will attract a likely owner while the Stadium remains in the hands of the Trust. The Members of theTrust however must be certain when they are electing the Board that the candidates are suitable and can be trusted to deliver the necessary skills to retain a successful Football Club.
@DevC there's no need for a vote unless the Trust board decide the issue is serious enough for one. It that case then it's pretty easy to organise a vote for all Trust members, either to make a decision or to get a steer on the views of the members.
This particular matter, Peter and others, is obviously relatively unimportant, not least because whatever WWFC decide there are 47 other votes that we cannot influence.
Am I right in understanding that what you are asking for is an information exchange whereby the club managers explain their thinking, listen to views if the supporters who attend and then make their decision.
I have no objection to that, although if the mood of the supporters was overwhelmingly in favour of option a) say at the start and still was at the end but the club managers still went with option b), I can see before long the supporters getting a bit pissed off and thinking what was the point of that then.
That is very different to at the other extreme a meeting being held, the cub managers having their say and then a vote held and the club managers being mandated to do a certain thing, even if that is against their better judgement.
The latter has to be in place for the most critical decisions (should we sell, should we move) obviously but am I right in understanding that your vision of supporter ownership is broadly in the former camp - we elect representatives, they consult, they then decide.
@DevC if you're talking to me, then yes.
Personally I wouldn't be annoyed if the club consulted and then decided contrary to my views, as long as they justified and explained the decision.
The important part is the involvement of supporters within some decision making processes, otherwise you basically have the same setup as a private owned clubs but without the money.
Clue was in the "peter" Peter!
Thank you. I think I understand your aspirations better. I assume the elected trust board are fairly fully engaged and consulted with the running of the club if not day to day matters.
Major decisions (sale, relocation, etc) are on a vote. They will be rare.
Otherwise a bit of communication and feeling that you have been listened to if not agreed with.
That doesn't feel unreasonable.
@DevC basically saying that "you know where we are if you need us" isn't enough.
I think the odd "we are looking at this, is there anyone in the membership with some expertise who might want to get involved?" or "here's an on-line vote for members to gauge opinion to see if we're on the same page on this" is reasonable enough, like you say.
Ok, thanks peter.
I tried to read all of this thread...and even care a little...but I found myself just hoping for some puns. I fear I am shallow.