Jump to content
Fans Focus - Non League football clubs

Recommended Posts

Sum players are just happy playing in there local league , or just with pals, people work then go football , playing higher would take ur Saturday work from you , so you earn less and in todays world that aint a great thing. not all clubs are throwing money everywhere , some players are to far up there own arses think they are so good, if they are then go play higher or don't moan about paying subs ,

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First session back for RT tonight, so I will let you know how we are looking in the next few days.....

 

Lost a few (Maldon / Southend Manor) but hopefully picked up a couple as well.

 

Be nice to be there or there abouts next season, but consistancy killed us last year with players commitment (Never played the same side in two consecutive games all season) but thats to be expected at this level I suppose....plus the 7 games in 12 days to finish the year didn't help.

 

Be a strong league next year.....my mate smallsy will put a good side together at Southminster although I know he's not putting to much pressure on the lads on their first season....and Aldborough were strong in the cup final as well, so lets hope they have kept their squad.

 

No entertaining this talk about money, its irrelevant, if Harold Hill have money and thats results in them being the strongest side then good on em.....as a player I want to play against the better players, if I get to do that because HH are paying money then thats a bonus, a challenge and good experience for thr youngsters....so fair play..!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally (talk_is_cheap) someone that speaks a little sense

So let’s get this right wood are paying players and they came 9th. HH are paying but all there players are crap and there are a few others teams who pay odd players

Frenford are fav to win it and kelvedon are gonna struggle

End of the day the team that wins the league have been the best team that season so money or no money doesn’t mean if you pay your going to clean up on the trophy front

Also noticed a lot of haters on this site some having personal digs and others just jumping on and having there say

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said TIC!

 

If some teams in the division are able to pay players then good for them. There was talk at the league AGM about making it an even playing field for all teams but I couldn't disagree more. Are Man Utd and West Ham on an even playing field? Or Canvey Island and Concord Rangers? Budgets, resources, facilities and level of support are things that make a club individual and ultimately the ability of the manager to attract and keep hold of good players will shine through. Even with good players you have to get them playing as a team to be successful.

 

There are a lot of people posting on here using an alias who seem to have a hidden agenda and looking to make digs at certain clubs such as Kelvedon. I have really enjoyed reading the debate, the rumours and the talk about this season but it would be nice to know who is associated with which clubs.

 

Finally, Most Wanted could you please type in a slightly larger font? I had to zoom in 400% to read that!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before , a good Kelvedon team is good for the league and the other teams in it. I think the issue the league have been trying to address is the use of senior players at the end of the season. Those players who have played for Ryman clubs all season and turn out for the final few games in the EOFL because they were signed on to do just that . They have had material impact on League titles etc in the past. Personally, I think that is wrong . I think they have tightened the existing rule so it has less chance of happening. As for paying players good luck to the boys; but it certainly did not work last season. I think it says more about the ego of the guy paying and at the end of the day its still 11 v 11. In the opinion of most who have contributed to this debate the players did not look like they were deserving of payment but I disagree, in my opinion, most of the players in Kelvedon's side last season would have got into any other Olympian side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SW, completely agree with you there about what has happened at the end of previous seasons and i understand why the league looked to address the matter but I do feel the new law is flawed. We are now only allowed one player in our team who has played 4 games or more at step 6 or above. Come September/October a lot of players will become available because they have only played bit parts in their respective clubs season and they may look to move on and drop down a level but we will not be able to sign them.

 

I think after a certain date we should only be able to pick those players if they have played in 50% of games to date rather than rule them out all together.

 

In addition, players playing at Step 6 and step 5 are not much different in ability to the level of player at step 7. If a club in the premier division were drafting in players from the ESL I certainly would not be worried.

 

Perhaps we would have been better to apply the new rule from step 4 onwards?

 

That is my opinion anyway.

Edited by smallsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree mate, the new rule does seem to have a few lmitations.

 

But my biggest concern is this. Last season we had a very good youngster, who has been offered the chane to step up and play for Maldon this season.

 

Quiet rightly, he accepted the challenge. Now, if he plays '4 games' but it doesn't work out, his only option is either the ESL (Which he has said he doesn't want to play) or park football.

 

Doesnt really seem fair on a young lad who is trying to make his way in non league football.

 

So like you say, the best solution would have been you can't play anyone who has made more than 4 appearences at the level above after a certain date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that if a player had played more than 50% of the games prior to the end of Dec (I mean League and EOFL Cup games) then the limitation should not affect them. It should thou affect players who do not comply with the 50% rule at the end of Dec. I do believe the league have been a little over zealous and may find they are dealing with a lot of breaches. The added risk is that the quality will disappear because guys who take their chance may not come back to the EOFL. I tyhink a good example is this seasons Denny Cup Final . Smallsy highlighted a good player and I looked him up when his name was released and he had played for Romford all season and fitted a few games in for M and B and he played and scored in the final - to me that is not right nor is it in the spirit of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SW - for him to be available to play in a cup final I am sure there are rules in place stating the player must have played in X amount of games or in previous rounds. I know that is the case for the Essex Premier Cup.

 

I think the new rules will prevent managers from encouraging their young players to give it a chance at a higher level and lower the standard of the league. The problem is the people voting on these rule changes are secretaries rather than managers and perhaps see things from an idealistic point of view rather than a practical one. What's done is done i suppose but I do agree with you SW when you say a lot of teams will no doubt breach the rules unwittingly and it may prove difficult to police.

 

Of course, the difference between step 7 and step 5 is not much. The difference between step 5 and the EOL 2nd/3rd divisions will be far greater and maybe this is how the rule passed.

 

As it was, should these have been the rules last season my squad would not have been affected but it would be nice to have that flexibility.

Edited by smallsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with the above. I can understand the league implying a rule of the registration of players, especially if it has effected results at the end of previous seasons, although i think there must be a better way around. Stop Whinging's rule seems very fair, if a player has not been involved in over half of his teams game's by December he should be allowed to sign for whoever.....i'm sure the other leagues do not have these rules.

 

It's good to see a youngster from Rayleigh stepping up, they seem to have some good players last year and it will be interesting to see how he gets on. The fact if it does not work out his option is only ESL is a shame!! i do not see any extra quality in the ESL as the teams play more of a physical long ball game in the aim of winning before concentrating on playing a less direct passing game. I'm not saying either is wrong i would just prefer spending my saturdays watching a team try and play the "right way".

 

For him to play in the final means one of the regular players would of missed out he had more then likely been at the club and played the whole season.......what must that do to a player who has given the club his commitment for a season??

Link to post
Share on other sites

For him to play in the final means one of the regular players would of missed out he had more then likely been at the club and played the whole season.......what must that do to a player who has given the club his commitment for a season??

 

Every player who played regularly last season played in the final.The player in mind played a dozen games for romford but played games for m&b before and after his spell there.I think the ruling is a joke, players who try to work there way up the leagues who maybe have a promising start but then get cast aside and find themselves frozen out,now cant go play in eofl JOKE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All, the change in rules on this topic was brought forward by a Club to the League and voted on by Clubs. You are right that Secretaries attend the AGM rather than Managers.

Perhaps if you have suggestions about ways of improving the League you should get your Secretary on board with your views or get him/her to send these to the League.

They will get listened to - at the end of the day it's the Clubs that vote rules in or out.

There is no room in moaning about things - like anything else if you don't like it get involved.

I agree with your comments made - let's start changing things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said always.

 

i know that all proposed rule changes are sent out to clubs during February so if they want to put forward amendments they have until the end of February to do so. Those amendments will then also be discussed at the A.G.M. and voted on.

 

Once again this season it was not until the A.G.M. that some clubs voiced objections to some of the rule changes and then tried to put forward amendments. Theyare not allowed to do that. Amendments to proposed rule changes cannot be accepted at the A.G.M.

 

Clubs should not wait for someone else to put forward a rule change proposal, they should do it themselves. ALL proposed rule changes from Clubs go, provided they are approved by the County, to the A.G.M.

 

So as always wrote, if your club do not like a rule get your club secretary to propose a change dont just sit on your hands and moan about it.

Edited by Olyfan
Link to post
Share on other sites

We all all accept the system , as Always Hiding (who sounds like a league officer) says its up to the clubs to discuss it more and bring the ideas to the league. Nevertheless, I think that it would be interesting to see how many Premier clubs voted against the rule. It is these clubs that are most likely to be affected by the rule because senior players are more likely to go to a Premier club than one lower down. I do accept that this is not the case all the time, but in the vast majority of occasions it is. Therefore, even if a Premier manager and secretary do talk and realise the shortcomings the rule has, nothing would have changed the result of the vote because too many clubs could not care less as they are not affected by it. I appreciate its a democracy but perhaps the Club Reps on the League committee (what do they do?) should have canvassed/discussed the matter with the clubs before the vote to ensure they understood that there was potential for a lot of good players to slip through the EOFL net because the League's members were going to stop them playing. Personally, I think the point needed addressing ,but the solution is a little dramatic and I think my previously suggested idea would have been a better solution. This point highlights the need for the club reps on the committee to be more active and talk to the clubs who they are suppose to represent. I also accept that clubs need to feed issues through to the reps to allow them to raise the matter. I get the feeling that they quite happy to sit on the committee and represent their 'OWN' clubs rather than the member clubs. Perhaps an independent (not club associated) representative should be on the committee to help with these sorts of issues. I really think this rule change has not been thought about and will be a pressure point throughout the season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Always Hiding, Olyfan and Stop Whinging have all made very good points.

 

Particularly when Olyfan suggests there was an opportunity to oppose the rule prior to the AGM. I personally was not aware of this and see where you are coming from with this.

 

Have to agree with Stop Whinging that the clubs most affected would be premier division sides who, overall, are in the minority and therefore would have probably been outvoted. This is a shame because step 7 and step 5 in this part of the world are very similar standards in my opinion.

 

Still, it is the same for all clubs so what will be will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Olyfan - I completely understand what you are saying, and in reality, it's very difficult to argue with........but it's a bit old fashioned don't you think.....?

 

The "We sent you a letter in February, and you can't make amendments at the AGM" sounds more like a dodgy banking process.

 

The AGM is where most people are present, therefore if a valid point is raised and backed by sound reasoning, then why can't it be amended, suggested or implemented there and then.

 

The club secretary's do a great job as do the managers and everyone involved in running a club at this level, so why not cut them some slack and allow for a system that improves the league rather than a ridged one that only allows the problem to be half addressed or in some cases made more difficult.

 

It's easy to spout "The rules are the rules" but in reality, it's clear in this instance that the problem has not been addressed so who's the real winners here???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop Whinging makes a very good point

 

>I get the feeling that they quite happy to sit on the committee and represent their 'OWN' clubs rather than the member clubs.

 

I do not now if this is the case but do clubs ever contact the club Representativs to discuss things ?

 

>The "We sent you a letter in February, and you can't make amendments at the AGM" sounds more like a dodgy banking process.

 

Now thats a real insult to the League :rolleyes:

 

The club secretary's do a great job as do the managers and everyone involved in running a club at this level, so why not cut them some slack and allow for a system that improves the league rather than a ridged one that only allows the problem to be half addressed or in some cases made more difficult.

 

It's easy to spout "The rules are the rules" but in reality, it's clear in this instance that the problem has not been addressed so who's the real winners here???

 

I fully understand your point but unfortunately new proposals at any AGM cannot be accepted and voted on. What could have happened at the last AGM was that the proposal could have been defeated as I believe some others were. I am sure that the Premier League clubs would have made strong vocal representations if they were so against the proposal.

 

Still, the next A.G.M. is in June 2013 so clubs have 11 months to come up with an alternative proposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep you guys are right - an AGM has to follow the rules whether we like it or not - just look what has happened in other leagues when the rules are not adhered to.

Club reps - an independent rep - sounds good but who is truly independent? and where do these volunteers magically spring from?

 

Again if you think the club reps aren't doing a good job then make sure you propose some that will.

 

We all want the League to be run well - if change is needed let's change it but you have to be more active by making formal proposals, engaging League Officers and so on.

A lot of what is said here is sensible so why is it that none of this gets to the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...