@Right_in_the_Middle - or maybe limit the number of players any club can have out on loan (don't Chelsea have something approaching 30 at any given time?), in the same way squad numbers are already limited. But that would require some kind of guts on behalf of the FA.
Whilst this is a stupid and potentially risky idea I do wonder if you've just hit the nail on the head. Is it a marketing ploy? Get local armchair fans of the bigger clubs along to your local ground and they may find they like the real match day experience and come along again to see their local team when 'their' club aren't playing?
But I'm with everyone else on this. We've rolled over to have our bellies tickled just before we get shafted.
Not sure I see what the premier teams get out of this.
Three games against barely motivated lower league weakened teams. So what? What do the young lads learn from this?
And if they all win the group, they then just play each other anyway.
Would it be the Football Club Board or the Trust Board which would have made the decision as to which way the WWFC vote would be cast? Apologies for my ingnorance.
My guess is that it's the Club Board that makes the decision, not the Trust Board. I would also add that IMHO, of the 2 bodies, it's the Trust Board that is more in touch with the fans. It would not surprise me to learn that WWFC had voted in favour of this move.
So far it appears that only Oxford have had the balls to come forward and explain why they voted in favour. Why does it take our board so long to admit what we all suspect? They must have known fans would want to know how we voted and the reasons for doing so?!
I'd be very disappointed if the WWFC board voted for this without proper consultation with WWT. If there was and WWT failed to canvass the opinion of their members, then those in favour of agreeing to this without bothering to gauge the opinion of members should face the music.
Let's wait to hear what they have to say about it........How they voted. How and who came to that decision.I would have expected the Trust Board to have been consulted. The club board members are servants of the trust board IMHO.
AGM in Portugal, sun, booze, prostitutes and drugs - and then at the end of the party they produce this shite idea to justify their holiday - thanks F.A.
I'm afraid I can't get as worked up about B-teams being able to play in the JPT as everyone else apparently can. I like the idea of testing our players out against second-string Premier League players and I think they'll relish the opportunity too. It will bring more resources into the club and will also - if we choose not to take the competition seriously - provide our own second-stringers with opportunities for at least a couple of matches a season. It will potentially revitalise a competition that no-one currently takes seriously. If the quid-pro-quo to letting in B-teams is that the Premier League provides more funding to small clubs like us, I'm all for it.
On the wider point of accountability - quite a few people on here were praising the interview Andrew Howard gave to the BBC where he said that as he was not a fan of the team he was able to take business decisions that benefit the club unfiltered by emotion. Well, here's an example of it. It strikes me as incongruous that people both want the club to be supporter-owned but are happy for the chairman to not be a supporter but hey-ho.
Once again though, it raises the difficult question of how much ownership do supporters actually have. My view, occasionally expressed on here, is that the supporters' trust appears to be weak at oversight and that probably allows the WWFC board to take liberties without too much worry about censure. A few more independently-minded trust directors would be useful, in my opinion, but with the current way the elections are administered, seems unlikely to materialise.
Let's just consider this differently for a minute.firstly it's only a one season trial,secondly anything that might add any interest to a rubbish tournament is worth a look at,thirdly as the B teams play one home game,do we get a chance to play at White Hart Lane,the Emirates or the Olyimpic Stadium (probably not but you never know)'finally this makes the competion a similar experience to the old London Challenge Cup in days of yore a popular completion once(.Google the subject if you please) just a few devils advocate thoughts.
Since the proposal refers to academy teams, rather than 'B' teams, I guess home games might take place at the academy teams' home grounds - e.g. Arsenal at Boreham Wood - and not at their parent teams' grounds.
One of my chief concerns is this - Am I right in thinking that we would still, under FA rules, have to field a side containing something like 6 players who started our previous league fixture?
If so, that doesn't allow us to rest as many players as we might otherwise choose to for these pointless glorified friendlies. The group stage format adds even more games to our schedule - only to still probably exit the competition at the first hurdle. If the last two seasons are anything to go by, we'll most likely start the season with a squad of only around 20 and they're now going to spend 3/4 games in the early months of the campaign being injured and run into the ground by the likes of Watford U21's, who will presumably be permitted to field as weak or as strong a side as they wish.
Not such a problem for FL sides with bigger squads to choose from, but it could really screw smaller teams like us over and bugger up our league campaigns before they've even got going (plus with no option to bring in emergency loans to cover injury shortfalls).
Comments
Utterly disgraceful. What percentage of lower league fans do you think would vote in favour of such a proposal?
The sad thing is, plastic premier league fans from the area will flock to see man Utd U21s at AP whilst the real fans boycott.
@Right_in_the_Middle - or maybe limit the number of players any club can have out on loan (don't Chelsea have something approaching 30 at any given time?), in the same way squad numbers are already limited. But that would require some kind of guts on behalf of the FA.
Whilst this is a stupid and potentially risky idea I do wonder if you've just hit the nail on the head. Is it a marketing ploy? Get local armchair fans of the bigger clubs along to your local ground and they may find they like the real match day experience and come along again to see their local team when 'their' club aren't playing?
But I'm with everyone else on this. We've rolled over to have our bellies tickled just before we get shafted.
Not sure I see what the premier teams get out of this.
Three games against barely motivated lower league weakened teams. So what? What do the young lads learn from this?
And if they all win the group, they then just play each other anyway.
I'm not convinced they'd win, I'd fancy Wycombe against a team of Liburds & Sellars.
My genuine hope is that we as fans come together and refuse to have anything to do with this competition
I'd still like to know which way we voted
Would it be the Football Club Board or the Trust Board which would have made the decision as to which way the WWFC vote would be cast? Apologies for my ingnorance.
If someone at the club did vote for this then we should put pressure on to have them removed
Ivor Beeks was at the FL get together wasn't he?
My guess is that it's the Club Board that makes the decision, not the Trust Board. I would also add that IMHO, of the 2 bodies, it's the Trust Board that is more in touch with the fans. It would not surprise me to learn that WWFC had voted in favour of this move.
I saw a photo of Beeks and the new owner of Bristol Rovers with their arms around each other on Not 606 Wycombe threads.
Nice response from one guy...
Burgerholic @lee__compton · 1h1 hour ago
.@wwfcofficial thats a posh way of saying "give us a couple of days to try and polish this turd" #BTeamBoycott @AgainstLeague3
I'd imagine we voted for it, as otherwise we could very easily quickly say "we voted against" without any controversy!
They wouldn't need a couple of days to clarify the position if they'd voted against.
Next AGM vote them all off
So far it appears that only Oxford have had the balls to come forward and explain why they voted in favour. Why does it take our board so long to admit what we all suspect? They must have known fans would want to know how we voted and the reasons for doing so?!
The decision should have been taken by the Football Board, The Trust Board might not have been informed of the proposal.
Think this is probably the most pertinent extract from Oxford's press release:
"The prize money will now be double for next season."
This despite there being no sponsor for next season at the moment. Wonder who stumped up the cash/bribe for that...?
The Premier clubs will however be winning most of the prize money so the likes of us will actually be worse off.
I can't believe that the Football Board would make decisions like this without consulting the Trust Board.
I'd be very disappointed if the WWFC board voted for this without proper consultation with WWT. If there was and WWT failed to canvass the opinion of their members, then those in favour of agreeing to this without bothering to gauge the opinion of members should face the music.
Let's wait to hear what they have to say about it........How they voted. How and who came to that decision.I would have expected the Trust Board to have been consulted. The club board members are servants of the trust board IMHO.
AGM in Portugal, sun, booze, prostitutes and drugs - and then at the end of the party they produce this shite idea to justify their holiday - thanks F.A.
They could of held it in Desboro Rd, and 'Honest Ivor' could of got the bus back to North Dean.
Three reasons why we voted for it...MONEY MONEY MONEY...
I'm afraid I can't get as worked up about B-teams being able to play in the JPT as everyone else apparently can. I like the idea of testing our players out against second-string Premier League players and I think they'll relish the opportunity too. It will bring more resources into the club and will also - if we choose not to take the competition seriously - provide our own second-stringers with opportunities for at least a couple of matches a season. It will potentially revitalise a competition that no-one currently takes seriously. If the quid-pro-quo to letting in B-teams is that the Premier League provides more funding to small clubs like us, I'm all for it.
On the wider point of accountability - quite a few people on here were praising the interview Andrew Howard gave to the BBC where he said that as he was not a fan of the team he was able to take business decisions that benefit the club unfiltered by emotion. Well, here's an example of it. It strikes me as incongruous that people both want the club to be supporter-owned but are happy for the chairman to not be a supporter but hey-ho.
Once again though, it raises the difficult question of how much ownership do supporters actually have. My view, occasionally expressed on here, is that the supporters' trust appears to be weak at oversight and that probably allows the WWFC board to take liberties without too much worry about censure. A few more independently-minded trust directors would be useful, in my opinion, but with the current way the elections are administered, seems unlikely to materialise.
The Trust Board appointed Andrew Howard to run the club as he sees fit. The Trust is quite open about this.
Let's just consider this differently for a minute.firstly it's only a one season trial,secondly anything that might add any interest to a rubbish tournament is worth a look at,thirdly as the B teams play one home game,do we get a chance to play at White Hart Lane,the Emirates or the Olyimpic Stadium (probably not but you never know)'finally this makes the competion a similar experience to the old London Challenge Cup in days of yore a popular completion once(.Google the subject if you please) just a few devils advocate thoughts.
Since the proposal refers to academy teams, rather than 'B' teams, I guess home games might take place at the academy teams' home grounds - e.g. Arsenal at Boreham Wood - and not at their parent teams' grounds.
One of my chief concerns is this - Am I right in thinking that we would still, under FA rules, have to field a side containing something like 6 players who started our previous league fixture?
If so, that doesn't allow us to rest as many players as we might otherwise choose to for these pointless glorified friendlies. The group stage format adds even more games to our schedule - only to still probably exit the competition at the first hurdle. If the last two seasons are anything to go by, we'll most likely start the season with a squad of only around 20 and they're now going to spend 3/4 games in the early months of the campaign being injured and run into the ground by the likes of Watford U21's, who will presumably be permitted to field as weak or as strong a side as they wish.
Not such a problem for FL sides with bigger squads to choose from, but it could really screw smaller teams like us over and bugger up our league campaigns before they've even got going (plus with no option to bring in emergency loans to cover injury shortfalls).