Whole Game Solution: Premier League B Teams ruled out following first phase of consultation The EFL and the 72 clubs it represents have collectively ruled out including Premier League B teams in future plans to reform the structure of English football. Following a meeting of its clubs on Thursday (22 September), the EFL confirmed that the inclusion of Premier League B Teams, clubs from non-English leagues or those outside the English football pyramid will not form part of any ongoing discussions for the ‘Whole Game Solution’. EFL clubs have been collectively discussing the fundamental issue of reforming the structure of English league football for the first time since agreeing to assess ideas put forward by the EFL Board at last summer’s Annual General Meeting. Those suggestions, which aim to improve the format of EFL competitions and the revenues received by clubs, posed a number of critical questions and these have been the subject of a consultation process with clubs during this past six weeks. All clubs, who will potentially vote on a final proposal in June 2017, have been considering the specific issues of regionalisation, the number of teams per division, divisional restructure, winter break and from where in the game the additional teams will come from. The majority of these issues, including how the funding redistribution model will work in the future, will continue to be assessed as the discussions are shaped over the next two months, but the option of sourcing additional clubs from anywhere but the National League has been withdrawn. In addition, the feedback has confirmed that clubs in League One, Two and the proposed League Three would want to play through a winter break if introduced. EFL Chief Executive Shaun Harvey said: “At the very outset of this process it was made clear that any decisions in respect of the future direction of the Whole Game Solution would be taken by clubs themselves and our announcement today comes as a result of their valued input. I am extremely grateful for their candour and support during the first part of this consultation that will ultimately help shape a final proposal for voting on in June next year. “The logical place for many was to source the additional teams for League Three from the National League but we felt it important that the debate was introduced at an early stage and an opportunity was provided for all Club owners’ and executives’ to voice any opinions and, where applicable, table concerns. We will now continue our consultation with the National League with a little more certainty as to what any change could mean for them. These conversations will include the FA in their capacity as the Governing Body not a competition organiser. “In addition, our dialogue will continue with the Premier League as we focus on ensuring we achieve our specific and primary objective of improving distributable revenue to our clubs and reaching a format that benefits the EFL, its competitions and the wider professional game. “The next round of consultation will also see us undertake some work with fan groups and other stakeholders to ensure that those people who are invested in the future our game are given an opportunity to register their views.” http://www.efl.com/news/article/201...consultation-3322371.aspx#SKiezgvCBMW96vY2.99
EFL rule out inclusion of premier league B teams & clubs from non English leagues in plans for new four division league structure
Good news, but I'm still struggling to understand what problem this whole thing is attempting to solve. The only issue I have with the English leagues is the physical impact which the Premier League has on players' fitness and injury situation which in term harms the England team. I'd potentially be in favour of a winter break in the PL only, which would give them a rest like other countries have and reduce the physical drain on players which accumulates over the season currently, and also hopefully give a boost to attendances of Football League clubs. But as this isn't about the Premier League I just can't see the point of what they're saying. It reads as though they just want to have some proposed changes to vote on, regardless of why. And the term EFL can just **** off. Again, what problem did that fix?
Was reading that and was going to post it under a heading of "Some sense at last..." Or something similar.
Winter break is a good idea, unless of course it's a mild winter & then a snowy February/March, then the whole fixture backlog will be even worse. I can understand why lower league clubs don't want anything to do with it. Christmas & New Year is usually the biggest crowd pull there is with Easter! Glad there's no invitations for the Scots, on so many levels it's unfair on the lower league teams! If they came in at the lowest possible league & not with a B team either, the actual club resigned from the SPL & joined the lowest league in England, (no idea what it is & can't be arsed to check), I could possibly accept it. Just knowing that it'd take something like 10 years to reach the PL, IF they managed to get promoted year after year!
Good. How it was even considered to be a good idea by those ****ing imbeciles in the FA is beyond me. Saying that, it was Greg Dyke who suggested it, and he agreed with the Allams on the name change.
Re the lowest possible division. There's no firm answer to that. It gradually gets less and less professional and more regional until you get down to the likes of Hessle Rangers who could theoretically be promoted all the way up to the PL. And there's loads more local divisions below them.
Winter break is just an excuse for the big clubs to fly all over the world playing lucrative games during it. It would have no benefit to the England team.
Would tolerate a winter break, but it must leave the Xmas/NY programme alone and start after FACUP R3. That said, I hate January, so it'd be a bit gutting to lose the football distraction. Also, with the Football League divisions each having 20 clubs, therefore 19 home games rather than 23, won't this **** a lot of breadline teams over in terms of income?
I honestly hope that one day international breaks are abolished. I ****ing hate going two weeks without seeing my club play, it isn't worth having two weeks off for a game against San Marino or Malta. If the players get called up, then they go, but then that's the club's problem and they should fill their team with reserves/youth players, thus giving younger players more of a chance and in Chelsea/Man City's case, less of a need to loan them out.
Choosing B teams meant it was clearly rigged in favour of Arsenal. Burnley and Bournemouth offer hope to others. They should get rid of a different letter each season, maybe start with the M's.
Rugby union carries on when there are internationals on. A bit unfair on the top clubs but they, like football, have the better squads. Cricket carries on as well.
Because every team has different numbers of internationals, every team will lose key players, key fixtures could fall under the international break giving some teams an unfair advantage. Sometimes squads are thin enough with injuries, a team might not even be able to field a full 11 and bench. I would hazard a guess that some teams lose all their goalkeepers to international breaks. International football would become a complete and utter farce with players being withdrawn left right and centre, or otherwise premier league fixtures full of 18 year olds who can hardly trap a ball, and besides any of the half decent 18 year olds will probably be off playing for the national u-21's side. There's a myriad of reasons why it's a stupid idea. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the current format.
Every two years the African players nip off mid-season to go and play in the AFCON. Everyone just deals with it because they have to. Clubs prepare to lose players for a month every two years. Under the system Sterling suggested, teams could use their youngsters (who they're always whining about not getting enough competitive football) or they could just have a bigger squad. Yes it might affect some teams more than others but so does the AFCON, so do injuries, so does pretty much everything in football. And this could at least be prepared for. We accept all of these different variables, why not accept one more?
