ExiledAjax

19 minutes ago, mozo said:

Wagner said pre-match that he thinks we could be challenging for top 6 next season, and today backs that up. 

Not sure I agree really. We played ok, at times we were on top, but equally I don't think Norwich were on top of their game. I also didn't see us impose ourselves on the game consistently. I said earlier in the season that I think our performances are basically defined by the opposition, and I think that happened today.

I thought we were good but I didn't see much to increase my feelings of top 6 next season.

All happy I guess. We played nicely, Norwich basically got themselves 6th. Everyone shakes hands and does the summer.

This is absolutely fine. 

What the ******* hell was that?

8 hours ago, DaveF said:

Of course they do, if they lose tomorrow and Hull win their game and their game in hand they're level on points...

...but probably still 6th, with both teams yet to play twice.

Do Norwich have a lot to play for? It's pretty unlikely that Hull catch them even with a game in hand.

1 hour ago, petehinton said:

This has all the makings of them doing a total 180 on it

I'm not sure they can do that quickly and easily. This isn't like the Super League, which was an idea/proposal, this has been approved. Presumably board meetings have been held, and I assume some sort of contract ahs been signed by the PL and FA regarding the extra £33m of funding. Not impossible to unravel, but there won't be a clause in that contract (assuming there is one) that says "you can terminate this if it turns out that fans and League 2 clubs hate it". So it could see a U-turn but it's going to be more complicated than what we saw with the Super League.

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

Watched the press conference and Wagner is in favour.

Essentially the person who made it has got confused - it should be Norwich in favour and not us. 

Thanks for doing the work. I'd also argue that Wagner is not Norwich. Manager opinions should be treated with caution as they won't necessarily represent the views of their club's owners/board members. It's not the managers who attend EFL general meetings.

18 minutes ago, northsomersetred said:

City in favour according to this spreadsheet and page

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/119dSeHfdaXguSElRMRA2xTmQm8M8aP0iMjxq7H4JQuU/edit?pli=1#gid=0

 

Based on Norwich's press conference from yesterday? I don't buy it. If ever there was a time for "I don't believe it until I see it on the OS", it's now.

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Here we go!

 

Any statement that starts with the words "...wishes to clarify further..." is going to be a banger.

Copied out here for those who don't use Twitter (currently known as 'X').

"The EFL wishes to clarify further its position in respect of yesterday’s Premier League and Football Association bi-lateral announcement over the removal of FA Cup replays and the role of the League’s representatives on the Professional Game Board (PGB). 

The agreement which now sees the abolition of replays from the competition format was agreed solely between the Premier League and FA.  Ahead of the deal being announced there was no agreement with the EFL nor was there any formal consultation with EFL Clubs as members of the FA and participants in the competition.  

In September 2023, the EFL did initially discuss with Clubs potential changes to the FA Cup format but only as part of a wider and more fundamental change to financial distributions. As is now clear, there has been no movement in this area since September.

This latest agreement between the Premier League and the FA, in the absence of financial reform, is just a further example of how the EFL and its Clubs are being marginalised in favour of others further up the pyramid and that only serves to threaten the future of the English game.  

The EFL today calls on both the Premier League and the FA, as the Governing body, to re-evaluate their approach to their footballing partnership with the EFL and engage more collaboratively on issues directly affecting our Clubs.

A separate issue is the role of the EFL representatives on the Professional Game Board (PGB) in agreeing to the 2024/25 overall fixture calendar. PGB is there to make technical decisions across the game as opposed to key policy decisions such as competition changes or formats.

Any decisions taken on the calendar involving EFL representatives are in no way an endorsement of the joint deal agreed between the FA and Premier League that imposes changes to the FA Cup competition format in isolation.

As part of the discussions the EFL representatives did challenge the position and were told that Clubs would be comfortable with no replays. They were effectively advised that, as a result, of it being an FA competition, the fixture list needed to be agreed as presented. It is also important to note that this matter was not discussed by the FA Cup committee, a separate group that oversees the competition across the professional and national game."

Not the strongest statement perhaps, but they are trying to make it crystal clear that the actual decision is a PL/FA one, yes they may have been consulted widely, but they linked it to a "New Deal", which as they say hasn't even been on the table from the PL for months.

They had to address this PGB issue as well, this is a bit weak there imo, although that final paragraph opens us up for a couple more statements from the FA!

Just now, exAtyeoMax said:

Good grief! What a sad bunch of weak, wet blankets they are. There are other teams apart from the top 6 in the prem. No wonder football has gone to shite.

One man's cowardice is another's pragmatism.

3 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

The Gas have made a statement. 

Oh thank god. It'll all be sorted out soon in that case! Close the thread. Gorringe and Al Qadi have it handled.

Joking aside, there's no doubt that within the EFL the Championship teams have the lion's share of the power. They also get the lion's share of the money that comes from the PL (including the precious parachute payments for those that make it up there). Also they're all hoping to be a Premier League team in the future, and generally don't want to turn up to their first meeting after promotion and be told they're not welcome because they shot their mouth off when in the EFL. Short-sighted, stupid, petty, yes all of those, but reality.

They are generally a lot less chippy than your average L2 team.

6 minutes ago, Harry said:

Is there any comment from our club on this yet? 

No, and it looks like most Championship clubs are keeping their powder dry for now. I think Pompey are the highest ranked club to have put something out so far?

The EFL can't leave that FA statement unanswered and I expect the Championship are waiting to see what the EFL say next.

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Hmmm.  Need the EFL to make a statement now!

 

You know they're serious because they've USED ALL CAPS.

8 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Yes. But they could have been manipulated/bullied into being silent

I think it's clear that at least some people at the EFL were aware of these changes, although perhaps not the full details of them, and had/have been promised that by allowing them they will get a better "New Deal".

This is a quote going round:

EFL chief executive Trevor Birch said: “Whilst the league had previously been involved in discussions over the future of the calendar, these were predicated on the agreement of a new financial deal with the Premier League for EFL clubs which has not progressed."

Now, call that manipulation if you like, I think it's possibly an example of naive negotiation on the EFLs part.

20 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

 

 

It depends a little on how that board of 8 approve decisions. If the chair has a casting vote then it's possible that all 4 EFL members voted no, but the decision was carried with the 4 PL members voting yes, and the Chair breaking the deadlock with his casting vote.

If that was the case though I'd have thought the EFL/Parry et al would have put out a statement noting their dissent. 

Just now, Davefevs said:

Sounds like you’re the man for the job…assuming you’d take a pay cut!

3 days a week for £130k...it's tempting  

If anyone is keen for a new job. Would be great to have a City fan in there:

Role details – Independent Football Regulator - Chair – Apply for a public appointment – GOV.UK (apply-for-public-appointment.service.gov.uk)

9 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Tranmere mentioned the regulator so they must feel the regulator would intervene in something like this if it came up in some manner. 

Tranmere's statement mentioned the regulator, but it didn't invoke it as a solutuon to this particular issue of "fixing" the FA Cup Rules. Tranmere (which is essentially Mark and Nicola Palios) said "It [the decision to scrap replays and the way it was taken] is yet another eloquent example of the 19th-century governance that means that football simply cannot regulate itself and needs the Independent Football Regulator to have real teeth." Chester FC also mentioned the regulator saying "This [the decision to scrap replays and the way it was taken] demonstrates an alarming lack of respect for the wider game and its fans, and reinforces the urgent need for a strong Independent Football Regulator.".

It's important to note here that these statements use this incident to encourage the Regulator's existence, but they don't actually say that they think the regulator would fix this particular issue.

9 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Whilst they may not be involved in the calander you'd expect them to be involved in changes to competitions surely? So if the prem wanted to change to a 10 team league they'd be involved in that? 

As it is currently drafted the Football Governance Bill does not purport to empower the regulator to directly alter, approve, or otherwise influence changes to a competition's rules.

However. A "specified competition organiser" such as the FA in the case of the FA Cup would need to consult the regulator before adding, removing, or varying a specified competition rule unless the variation is not material. There is also a particular clause that says that this covers rule's that are relevant to the regulator's functions - which include maintaining the financial sustainability of the pyramid, and the financial soundness of clubs. So there's no power for the regulator to actually dictate or stop the FA/PL from making changes, but it has to be told about them and the word "consult" implies that it's concerns would at least to be noted, and if ignored, then there would need to be a justification for that.

I think as well that the regulator would be able to make adjustments to the financial distribution agreement between the PL/EFL/FA/National League in order to compensate for any revenue lost through the lsoss of replays. That would be an indirect way of addressing the ripple effects of this decision. Although that power will require amendments to be made. to the current draft of the Bill.

9 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't like how the Fa and the PL have done this. It smells rotten. Gives me very similar feelings to the SL. 

I agree with this. It stinks. I've written to our Club asking them to make a statement.

2 hours ago, cityexile said:

Thinking in hindsight it but might have been better to just let the buggers go to the super league and have been done with it.

No.

1 hour ago, BigTone said:

100% agree. Let them all **** off and allow British football to return to sustainable reality. You've got my vote.

Sorry, my opinion is that this is the easy way out, and is a replication of the attitude of the Football League in the early 90s. 

Don't let them go. They're part of the pyramid, part of the ecosystem, and they are part of the UK's football heritage whether they like it or not. Even if they did "**** off" the big PL teams would still take our youth players, still force loanees on us, and they'd still dictate the schedule with their mates at Sky. The only difference is they'd be outside of even the slightest bit of control in their own shitty gold European pond.

They made this bed that clubs like ours are lying in and they can ******* well lie in it with us.

2 hours ago, wendyredredrobin said:

2023/24 Attendances courtesy of transfermarket.com:

City    22,784

Sags     8,152

Still, they are the bigger club with the best support (Gas logic).

BCFC Women - 7,384

32 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

The cynical side of me thinks this was quickly pushed through before the regulator is introduced. 

An interesting angle to it. The regulator won't have any direct influence on the calendar or on the rules of any competition, but I guess if the PL were going to try and use this extra £33m as leverage in a financial distribution negotiation then maybe they'd want it done before the Bill is passed?

What was your reasoning here?

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Shows how much interest I take in the FA cup EA.

You should apply for a job at the Premier League. You'd fit in well.

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Would be interesting to hear the EFL’s part in this (if at all), or at least their view.

I think it gets the potential of an ugly problem re the new EFL tv deal and now there won’t be any potential for too many games close together.

@ExiledAjax - I recall you have concerns about this on the tv deal thread.

Can't imagine Rick Parry was allowed in the room tbh.

I can't remember my earlier concerns tbh. May not have been me?

I'd say btw, I'm not actually entirely against the concept of scrapping replays for the right reasons and with other changes made to ensure that lower league clubs still benefit from it. This is just such a transparent decision that they've not even tried to spin it or hide it

43 minutes ago, Robbored said:

If you want to be cynical - try this. To ease the financial plight of many lower league clubs the draw ‘randomly’  selects the PL clubs home to a lower league club……….. 

Cynical? The FA literally say the changes are driven by changes to the European calendar.

"In its current format, the FA Cup has no replays from the fifth round onwards, but the FA says the move to eliminate them from an earlier stage has been made "in light of changes to the calendar driven by the expanded Uefa competitions"."

No cynicism needed at all mate.

40 minutes ago, Robbored said:

The competition has to have the same regulations in every round. It wouldn’t be acceptable to introduce ‘no replays’ in round 3 when the big boys join in.

Are you serious? It's had no replays from 5th round onwards for the past few seasons.

Just now, Robbored said:

I’m sure that was taken in consideration when the ‘no replays’ was decided. Ultimately it’s a ‘swings and roundabouts’ dilemma.

I'm 99.99% sure it wasn't considered at all.

If PL clubs are truly concerned about fixture congestion then they could have said something against the Champions League going from 6 group games to 8.

But no. Obviously they'd like to trade a nasty FA Cup replay against a side like Port Vale for a nice little earner in UEFA competition.