kentblues
Director⭐
It must be me, but I'm a little bemused by the last four posts.
Kent Blues suggests this was 91 (now 100, according to the BBC) who wrote out of 1500.
One assumes it's the clubs like Bulls and South Shields from the immediate leagues below step 2 non-league who have most to lose.
'Representatives from each of the leagues'? I doubt very much, for example, whether the Cornwall Combination made or the Shropshire Premier League made a protest.
Each level to step 13 needs an awful lot of representation. I'd like to see evidence to the contrary, and I can't find any.
'More important than anything else'?
Is that the same complaint that clubs should not be thinking of the future in the face of the current crisis?
In which case, the FA should also have downed tools until it's over.
One action provokes a reaction.
For clarity it was 64 clubs out of 91 leagues at the time of writing. Summation is 1500 clubs based on 16 or so clubs per league- may well be wrong. I don't know how precisely the leagues are represented?, maybe the league representation is grouped in some way. You might not believe the FA when they say this is the feedback from the representatives from the leagues, but I doubt they will lose too much sleep about that unfortunately. I just take it at face value- if someone proves the FA wrong then I will change my view for sure. My start point isn't that they are not telling the truth.
I think the point stands that 64 clubs might well not be, in fact, very many at all, and maybe a decent reporter would have had the gumption to provide the context so that we didn't need to debate/guess/summise on what is obviously a very relevant point. But the headline these days is far more important than the facts. CP innocent here- he has picked up the story from elsewhere (BBC?) and shared.
Of course, the clubs should absolutely be thinking of the future of their club and their staff, and in fact should be free to focus on that in an atmosphere of certainty provided by Prem, EFL, FA. For example if they know this season won't complete they can focus on surviving and getting ready for next. From a financial point of view what they do if they have to complete the season verses if they don't may be very different. The finances of clubs that might lose out (or indeed the finances of the clubs that might benefit) should not somehow take precedence or count more- or as I say provide some sort of veto on the outcome.
Don't know why the FA should down tools- I would have thought from an administration point of view they would have been able to continue whilst social distancing/homeworking? And they along with the Prem & EFL have plenty of work to do working out how to support clubs though this.
Last edited: