We wont be paying for testing, bringing our payers and staff off furlough, extending loans/contracts and training for 3 weeks just to play one game against Wycombe.
1. Don't see us coming back for 1 game to sort out PPG issues. Prohibitive costs for a one-off game.
seems the way they are scheduling fixtures over so many days for TV means that (if there was a 2nd spike) chances are all teams wouldn't finish on same number of games played anyway.
True but rounds of games are only spread over what 2-3 days. They will see a second spike coming and be able to finish a round of games. We won't wake up on a Tuesday and be back into immediate lockdown because of what happened on a Monday.
Unlikely they'll get the 14 votes needed to cancel relegation.
I think it’s all still very much in the melting pot and certain scenarios possibles and probables have been discussed, the Prem bottom six and maybe a couple above that I’m sure would go no relegation given the chance, and distribution of future tv money taken into consideration, as for European football not sure if that will happen as it used to next season the logistics of that is massive. Whatever they decide won’t effect our promotion so in a way who cares
They've already moved the Champions League from Turkey to Portugal so expect that to happen. As with the Prem too expensive not to. Likely to happen over a 2 week period in August
Why would the teams who say they want to finish the season vote for a proposal that ends it? I get why Posh and Sunderland might but if the 4 teams in the playoffs now are voting for a scenario that ends the season it'll be the one where only 3 other teams are in the playoffs with them
You've only looked at L1 teams, it would need to get past at least 51% of all EFL clubs first. If it does then L1 votes and if they decide to play on Tranmere's proposal doesn't come into it. Can't see why Oxford, Portsmouth, Peterborough or Fleetwood would vote for the Tranmere method. That would see them go from being in the normal play off format to an 8 team tournament, why vote to make it harder for yourselves while losing more money? Sunderland, Wycombe and Doncaster might as they're suddenly in the play offs. The only other team who is works in the advantage of is Tranmere themselves.
The EFL proposed regulation change was about 10 lines, Tranmere's is 7 pages, no wonder people can't understand it!
Yes very strange. I would assume their formula is to protect integrity, to make everything as fair as possible. So why should not all leagues be using this. After all, haven't they supposedly got a lot of chairmen backing this (most probably the ones from position 7 downwards who suddenly could be in a play off place).
Seems the clubs have the choice of the EFL proposal, which is consistent across all divisions, maintains the play off format, maintains the correct number of teams in each division. Or the Tranmere proposal which could end up with something different applied to every division, completely tears up the play off format (without defining the replacement) and messes up the number of teams in the divisions which will then need correcting in following seasons.
Nicola Palios "I am sick of arguing with people who haven’t read the proposal."- well stay off Twitter
might as well finish the season off rather than this proposal
Why? I don’t get it. They’ve underperformed all season why would they suddenly go on an 8 game winning streak?
Maybe they are using the same definition of integrity that Peterborough are?
