Latest news:

Tranmere's alternative proposal now tabled with EFL
Discussion started by Aldo'smuzzy (IP Logged), 02 June, 2020 18:07
Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
02 June, 2020 18:07
The Independent reported we were going to submit it and Mrs P has confirmed we did so before today's 2pm deadline. The FGR tramp Vince has already trashed it on Twitter but here's how the Independent reported it: [www.independent.co.uk]

I expect we'll be hearing a lot more on this in the coming days, and not all of it will be complimentary! Its biggest problem is first impressions and many people won't go beyond that, which is a pity because it'd ought go be appraised on its fairness.

Yes it looks weird but it does appear to successfully mitigate most of the unfairness inherent in PPG and null and void. Hopefully enough clubs will see that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2020 18:12 by Aldo'smuzzy.

MESSAGES->author
BELMONT
02 June, 2020 18:23
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
The Independent reported we were going to submit it and Mrs P has confirmed we did so before today's 2pm deadline. The FGR tramp Vince has already trashed it on Twitter but here's how the Independent reported it: [www.independent.co.uk]
I expect we'll be hearing a lot more on this in the coming days, and not all of it will be complimentary! Its biggest problem is first impressions and many people won't go beyond that, which is a pity because it'd ought go be appraised on its fairness.

Yes it looks weird but it does appear to successfully mitigate most of the unfairness inherent in PPG and null and void. Hopefully enough clubs will see that.

Gary Neville according to some reports has retweeted the FGR Chairman's views on Tranmere's proposals have no logic to it and should be thrown out.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
02 June, 2020 18:34
The use of a statistical margin for error isn't something Palios has just invented. Many businessmen (including club owners, chairmen and directors) will at least know that, and some will be familiar with the concept. Vince and Neville are just being obtuse about it, I reckon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2020 18:48 by Aldo'smuzzy.

MESSAGES->author
Matt34
02 June, 2020 19:17
Well neither of their clubs were in a playoff position when the season got cancelled and as for Neville he's not doing his I'm helping nurses good guy rep any favour, by trashing other peoples good ideas.

Not least as the only reason they are in that league is down to David Lim and his 50% ownership and cash. Neville and the Man U boys couldn't have fronted up enough cash by themselves, to help finance some of the players thay have had over their time and paid the wages. Without Lim Adam Rooney on a purported £4,000 a week would never have happened.

Palios may not splash the cash, but he and his wife have more experience of working with companies and being in business than someone like Gary Neville and he would do well to remember that, instead of bleating like he's some kind of big noise, just because of his playing past, because these days he's a man with a past rep at the top level, but he's not got the same swagger that week in week out premier league playing gives you and week in week out big league management gives you.

Tranmere staying put in league one would be good for the aura of North West football teams as a whole and Neville would be wise to either back that notion or keep his distance from it and remain silent.

His focus should be on his hotels and his own club right now.



Then I ate his Liver.......... with some baked beans and a can of coke.

DevonExile
DevonExile
02 June, 2020 20:30
There is logic in the proposal but it does lack instant appeal and it is difficult to see why a majority would buy into the proposal.
I hope it succeeds but some posts seem to see us victims of an anti Rovers agenda. Whatever the flaws of the EFL proposals, I do not think it owes much to a direct down on the club. If it had been some other club in our position, the proposals would have been the same.We have been in the relegation group almost every week of the season, for most it will not look like a travesty of justice. It is unfortunate that the season did not go on a week longer but others might point to our home form and argue that we may well not have won that game

jonesy792
jonesy792
02 June, 2020 20:39
I fear the views of Vince and Neville are shared by other clubs too. On first impression, it does feel like a Save Tranmere from relegation proposal. But if the likes of Vince and Neville actually read the details and put their own agendas to one side, they should see it is a fair proposal.

Vince’s Twitter comment that it’s “artificial” is a truism. The question is- is it fairer than the artificial unweighted PPG. It definitely is.

jonesy792
jonesy792
02 June, 2020 21:21
And Vince’s comment that it has “no equity or logic” is a staggeringly ignorant comment

Zint
Zint
02 June, 2020 21:57
Can’t help thinking it’s all heading for a stalemate. Worse possible outcome but that’s EFL for you.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
02 June, 2020 22:11
From the BBC's Ian Dennis just now:

EFL LATEST...Deadline was 2pm today for submissions “The EFL Board has received a number of submissions from Clubs in respect of proposed amendments to EFL Regulations.
“As a result of a number of competing proposals, these will now be discussed at tomorrow’s EFL Board meeting”

Zint
Zint
02 June, 2020 22:22
I thought EFL announced last week that any proposals received would be put before clubs?

Loyden1
Loyden1
02 June, 2020 23:11
Wycombe have said they are losing £350k per month and reckon £2.5million by December. Sobering thought chaps

Anonymoose
Anonymoose
02 June, 2020 23:47
Quote:
Loyden1
Wycombe have said they are losing £350k per month and reckon £2.5million by December. Sobering thought chaps

And yet, due to the EFL decisions, they could be in the championship next season

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
03 June, 2020 00:05
Quote:
Zint
I thought EFL announced last week that any proposals received would be put before clubs?

Me too.
Maybe there are certain criteria that need to be met before any proposal can go to the vote, or maybe a filtering process going on.

gary anderson
gary anderson
03 June, 2020 05:49
There dragging there feet becomes this has never happened before and they have not really got a clue what to do .maybe they should have just said weeks ago the season is cancelled void finished till this is over and that's it no means no groans .people life's are far more important .but it's been going on for weeks now and still no answers .they made a rod for there own back and it's a bloody mess .and I can't even see the premier starting again .if as been said on another site killer Hancock been cough out with more of his lies the true figure is well over 50.000 .so we just got to wait it out as can't even see next season getting g underway

MESSAGES->author
Doogie'sGhost
03 June, 2020 09:25
I'm not that keen on the Palios proposal to be honest. It lacks, as others have said, a simplicity and I cannot see any way that it passes. It smacks of a just save Tranmere proposal. The EFL seem wedded to the idea of ppg, promotion, relegation and playoffs or playing out the season and perhaps we should have offered them that, but with a difference.

Each club gets a vote either to continue the season or get ppg. The vote is in secret and is not unilateral. If a team votes to take ppg their season is over (unless they make the playoffs). If a team votes to play on they get to play all their outstanding games against teams that have also chosen to play on. After all these games are completed a ppg adjustment is then made to the games which cannot be played.

Therefore teams are not voting on a known outcome. If Wimbledon chose to end their season their points total would be set. If we then played a further three or four games the result of those games would be factored into our ppg total. A couple of wins would send them down rather than us in this situation and similar adjustments would happen at the top of the table.

It's still not ideal, nothing is from this position, but at least it gives teams that feel they have a strong chance of changing their fate an opportunity of doing so. That's really all I want.

Zint
Zint
03 June, 2020 10:10
Quote:
Doogie'sGhost
I'm not that keen on the Palios proposal to be honest. It lacks, as others have said, a simplicity and I cannot see any way that it passes. It smacks of a just save Tranmere proposal. The EFL seem wedded to the idea of ppg, promotion, relegation and playoffs or playing out the season and perhaps we should have offered them that, but with a difference.
Each club gets a vote either to continue the season or get ppg. The vote is in secret and is not unilateral. If a team votes to take ppg their season is over (unless they make the playoffs). If a team votes to play on they get to play all their outstanding games against teams that have also chosen to play on. After all these games are completed a ppg adjustment is then made to the games which cannot be played.

Therefore teams are not voting on a known outcome. If Wimbledon chose to end their season their points total would be set. If we then played a further three or four games the result of those games would be factored into our ppg total. A couple of wins would send them down rather than us in this situation and similar adjustments would happen at the top of the table.

It's still not ideal, nothing is from this position, but at least it gives teams that feel they have a strong chance of changing their fate an opportunity of doing so. That's really all I want.

Whilst I appreciate the efforts around constructive proposals, one flaw regarding what you suggest is that we, for example, have to play Wimbledon. You can’t combine PPG with playing games.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
03 June, 2020 10:41
Quote:
Doogie'sGhost
I'm not that keen on the Palios proposal to be honest. It lacks, as others have said, a simplicity and I cannot see any way that it passes. It smacks of a just save Tranmere proposal.

Which is both true and wrong. It's actually fair but initial perceptions will probably kill it. Then again, we haven't seen the updated version the club submitted yesterday (and perhaps we never will unless it gets put to the vote).

We've now had three months of ructions since non league started grappling with this issue and went with null and void, right through to today (and beyond). The ructions invariably boil down to just two things (1) the inherent unfairness in both null and void and PPG and (2) the viability and desirability of playing out the rest of the season varies from club to club, so what's fair for one isn't fair on the other. The arguments behind both are as long as your arm.

It always ends divisively with a 'least worst' option chosen and all sorts of dissent and legal threats following on. Yet, when you dig into it, the Palios model actually mitigates the unfairness in both (1) and (2), and all the arguments behind them, in a sweep. And I bet nobody would even be talking of legal action if, by some miracle, it was adopted.

Despite perceptions, it isn't just a save Tranmere proposal. Its focus isn't on saving Tranmere, its focus is on breaking down then addressing the obvious unfairness behind a situation that has touched us and quite a few other clubs, and giving everyone a fair shake.

It produces an outcome that looks odd but any fair solution to an odd problem can look odd. There may be other fair solutions out there which the EFL might now be poring over....even yours Doogie (which is also a far better alternative than the EFL want)!

Yet for the sake of expediency the only choice on the table looks like play either 10 games or none and, if the latter, adopt a flawed model that produces flawed outcomes (with big repercussions) at both ends of the table. I'd like to see how the FA, when they're asked to approve it, justify that as being in the best interests of the game they govern. Or maybe shafting a couple of clubs is a small price to pay for the greater good?!

pez
pez
03 June, 2020 10:45
There seems to be very little support for M.P's proposal and there are quite a few tweets suggesting that it only satisfies Tranmere Rovers desperate attempt to avoid the drop.

This whole situation has caused a "@#$%& you jack, Im allright" attitude amongst all clubs at a time when they should all be helping eachother and working towards an outcome which suits ALL Clubs.

I cant see us getting enough of the vote and there are a lot of negative comments from supporters of other FL1 clubs who think we deserve to go down.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
03 June, 2020 10:56
The day the Twitterati inform our daily lives we may as well all give up!

Has anyone actually identified an aspect of the Palios plan which is unfair? To anyone?

pez
pez
03 June, 2020 11:06
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
The day the Twitterati inform our daily lives we may as well all give up!
Has anyone actually identified an aspect of the Palios plan which is unfair? To anyone?

There are pundits and FL Club Owners all pitching in and dismissing MP's proposal so its obviously a concern, whether on Twitter or not.

Its going to take a mammoth effort to convince the majority of owners to vote for it.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
03 June, 2020 11:29
Gut feel is it almost certainly won't get anywhere (though MP was suggesting otherwise yesterday).

But I'm still waiting for anyone, including pundits and those naturally unbiased creatures, club owners, to identify any element of unfairness in it.

ming05
ming05
03 June, 2020 11:43
I will be very surprised if this gets the number of votes needed, most clubs will listen to what fa tells them. Clubs with nothing to play for and those promoted or relegated either way will go with the fa. The championship will vote for fa as they are going to finish the season.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
03 June, 2020 11:48
EFL not FA.

ming05
ming05
03 June, 2020 11:52
Does it matter You obviously knew what meant. ?

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
03 June, 2020 12:06
EFL arranges the competition and makes decisions for the competition.
FA governs the game and makes decisions for the best interests of the game.
The EFL, in pursuing its agenda, is unfairly shafting us and others. The FA have to approve this so, in pursuing the best interests of the game, might yet have something to say.
So yes, it matters.

ming05
ming05
03 June, 2020 12:17
Ok if it is that important to you. The EFL

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
03 June, 2020 12:35
You getting something wrong is of no importance at all to me. Thought you might have appreciated the distinction, obviously not. We move on.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
03 June, 2020 12:49
BBC's Ian Dennis is saying the EFL's voting papers will be sent to clubs today. Needs to be five days between sending the papers and holding the EGM so the vote might be put back a day to next Tuesday. But hopefully we'll get news on what the options are later today.

Bored rover
Bored rover
03 June, 2020 12:54
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Gut feel is it almost certainly won't get anywhere (though MP was suggesting otherwise yesterday).
But I'm still waiting for anyone, including pundits and those naturally unbiased creatures, club owners, to identify any element of unfairness in it.

Adrian Durham said his piece on talksport dead against PPG says it’s totally unfair referenced us and Wycombe, which I guess is the side of it we’ve forgotten other clubs suggesting we deserve it as league tables don’t lie, which they don’t so why should Wycombe be elevated to play offs, surely the fairest way is to take the table as it stood at the half way point I.e after 22 games that way each side has played each-other once, if that relegates us so be it at least it’s fair and based on the field not in some mathematical equation.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
03 June, 2020 13:43
Or somehow the 72 clubs tell League 1 to play on.

Why did they not keep the message simple



TRFC is #8 on Wirral's new Viking Trail
[www.facebook.com] 👊👊

MESSAGES->author
Doogie'sGhost
04 June, 2020 11:16
Quote:
Zint
Quote:
Doogie'sGhost
I'm not that keen on the Palios proposal to be honest. It lacks, as others have said, a simplicity and I cannot see any way that it passes. It smacks of a just save Tranmere proposal. The EFL seem wedded to the idea of ppg, promotion, relegation and playoffs or playing out the season and perhaps we should have offered them that, but with a difference.
Each club gets a vote either to continue the season or get ppg. The vote is in secret and is not unilateral. If a team votes to take ppg their season is over (unless they make the playoffs). If a team votes to play on they get to play all their outstanding games against teams that have also chosen to play on. After all these games are completed a ppg adjustment is then made to the games which cannot be played.

Therefore teams are not voting on a known outcome. If Wimbledon chose to end their season their points total would be set. If we then played a further three or four games the result of those games would be factored into our ppg total. A couple of wins would send them down rather than us in this situation and similar adjustments would happen at the top of the table.

It's still not ideal, nothing is from this position, but at least it gives teams that feel they have a strong chance of changing their fate an opportunity of doing so. That's really all I want.

Whilst I appreciate the efforts around constructive proposals, one flaw regarding what you suggest is that we, for example, have to play Wimbledon. You can’t combine PPG with playing games.
What is ppg if it isn't a combination of games played and points taken in them?

Johnny_kings_cake
Johnny_kings_cake
04 June, 2020 13:41
I think what Zint was saying is that you can't combine playing on and PPG if different teams do different things. If we want to play on but Wimbledon don't, how is the game between us decided? Is PPG used for that game and match points only won from games where both teams agree to play on? If that was the case then surely only teams who stand to benefit from playing on would surely choose to do so. That would be ourselves and the teams with aspirations of play offs/promotion. So in reality we would only be playing any remaining fixtures against the "better" teams in the division....hardly an attractive proposition but I guess still better than the guaranteed relegation from PPG alone.

SpitalLad
SpitalLad
04 June, 2020 16:07
There was a similar proposal on twitter, (maybe the same person!) that said anyone choosing not to play on simply forfeited any game against a team who did vote to play on. Otherwise PPG. I believe there is already a regulation around this, didn't Brentford benefit from this a couple of seasons back... can't remember the opposition??

I quite like that idea, but would fully exclude PPG from it. Such that all games between teams choosing to play on would be clearly just played. Games between those wanting to play & those not would be awarded to the team wanting to play on. Remaining games involving 2 teams not playing on are 0-0. You should then be unable to change your original decision should you end up either out of play off spots or in the relegation zone.

Strangely those currently just above us might suddenly come across an off shore fund they didn't previously know about!

Bored rover
Bored rover
04 June, 2020 16:16
There are 4 other proposals put forward also one being from Lincoln, I wonder what theirs is as they are safe are they not?

MESSAGES->author
Doogie'sGhost
04 June, 2020 17:30
Quote:
Johnny_kings_cake
I think what Zint was saying is that you can't combine playing on and PPG if different teams do different things. If we want to play on but Wimbledon don't, how is the game between us decided? Is PPG used for that game and match points only won from games where both teams agree to play on? If that was the case then surely only teams who stand to benefit from playing on would surely choose to do so. That would be ourselves and the teams with aspirations of play offs/promotion. So in reality we would only be playing any remaining fixtures against the "better" teams in the division....hardly an attractive proposition but I guess still better than the guaranteed relegation from PPG alone.

Yes, I knew that and was being a touch pedantic. But i dont see why having teams choose different options would be a problem. Ij fact, the whole point of my proposal was that it wasn't unilateral and allowed teams to either play on or take ppg. A way of attempting to reach a fairer outcome whilst allowing teams to choose the option which is right for them rather than have one they are unhappy with forced on them. I don't see why this is such a problem to have teams choosing different routes providing they understand the potential consequences before making that choice. After, its not like every team has played an equal number of games at this point either so it is already not a level playing field. Whatever outcome is arrived at is a compromise.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
05 June, 2020 01:07
Quote:
jonesy792
And Vince’s comment that it has “no equity or logic” is a staggeringly ignorant comment

Its just sour grapes after what we did to them last season. And on their own ground & led by the amazing Mike Dean.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
05 June, 2020 01:08
Quote:
Loyden1
Wycombe have said they are losing £350k per month and reckon £2.5million by December. Sobering thought chaps

Poor Wycombe Wanderers. They can rot in hell.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net