|
Post by knowingeye on May 28, 2012 9:52:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 28, 2012 10:54:27 GMT
The frustrating thing for me on this is the way its being railroaded into all levels of football
I agree the academy and professional setup should embrace the recommendation and look to get the future of the professional game playing with ball retention etc and the other aspirational skillsets they want young kids to have
However, I do object that all of the rule changes, including strange sized pitches for 5v5, 7v7, 9v9, 11v11 etc are being forced through at park football level for kids, who have as much chance of influencing the future of the national team as I do (I still have dreams of a call up at 37 lol)
I have asked Nick Levett and his team a number of times around who will be providing the facilities for all of this, who will be paying for new goalposts and nets, who will be creating all of the recreation grounds to mark these pitches out, and more importantly where are all the extra managers going to come from to coach these kids
The current setup of 7v7 up to under 10s works fine for me (although I would even look to reduce this to u9 as by 10 the pitches are fairly small for the kids who dont get a lot of time on the ball), its a fairly standard pitch setup from u7-10 so that the same pitches can get multi use
I think the guys running this have done so from the perspective of teams like Stone/Shamblers etc who have excellent facilites that they own and can adapt, whereas a team like mine (Biddulph Town) and many many others rely completely on council facilities, often sharing cramped sports grounds with other kids, junior, youth and adult teams - its a challenge as it is to schedule games
The switch to 5v5 for little ones also opens up the question that to split a squad of 10/12 into 2 teams, you then need 2 lots of coaches, barriers, posts, strips etc - coaching aside, money doesnt grow on trees at the minute!
They want non competitive until u12 - anyone thats attended an u7/8 game (which is supposed to be non competitve now) will tell you that its not the competition thats the problem, its the expectations of parents and their desire to win. Shouty parents would be a much better problem to resolve than pitch/rule/squad sizes
My guys finished bottom of a very competitive u10 league last season, we beat some good sides, lost to those around us, but had a great old go at it - they progressed again from last season so all was good
We go to 11 a side next year, we are all looking forward to it
I just think the FA and the recomendation miss the point, none of my lads will go on to play for England (or even a professional club), they play to enjoy football, so they should leave us to get on with it - fair enough if you want to impact academies and the talent they produce/nurture, but for park football, let us do the best for the kids with the limited funds/facilities available
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on May 28, 2012 11:12:49 GMT
Another undeniable issue in England is the vice-like grip the FA and Football league has on youth development and anything worthwhile outside of that duopoly has little chance of independent or appropriate funding, witness Giveusbackourgame project of a few years ago that many tried to sponsor to bring in changes to youth football.
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 28, 2012 11:28:36 GMT
Interestingly KE a number of clubs and teams are already talking of breaking away and forming unsanctioned leagues locally if this is pushed through
Other things they tried to get through (and I think have been withdrawn) is age limit changes (making it Jan-Dec rather than school years) which would mean schoolmates couldnt play together, and even talk of summer football rather than winter
There was a lot of objection to the age change, as especially at local league level most teams are made up from bunches of mates - they indicated in their 'research' that a lot of the kids at clubs came from 5-6 schools - that to me tells me the sorts of clubs they have been asking and that their interpretation of 'grass roots' is different to mine
Summer football obv didnt take off - kids play cricket and other sports all summer, and could you imagine a title decider when half your team was off on hols to Spain? Silly. I would rather (and my kids) play on soft ground with a bit of rain than a rock hard summer pitch.
Have no doubt they will force all of this through, be interesting to see where the real grassroots teams take it from there.
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 28, 2012 16:32:43 GMT
I see they were pushed through with 87% support
Be interesting in 5 years if Barca or Spain (or Arsenal!) win nothing and teams like us, Chelsea, Germany, even England have success by doing the basics well (defending and preventing the other team from scoring) rather than trying to play fantasy football whether they change their tune
Is a bandwagon for me, more money, more equipment suppliers kept in business, more council fees to mark strange pitches, more fees for CRBs, Coaching courses, Safeguarding and Welfare officers - its a proper money making scheme.
I think (thankfully) my lad (who goes to u11 next season) will just move past the criteria when its fully introduced fully in 2014/15, he will be u13 by then so bypasses their new rules
However when my youngest (2 now) is ready to join a team, there isnt a chance of me getting involved - I will simply enjoy going to watch as some other poor muggins is pissed about by stupid rule changes that make giving kids a game of footy on a Sunday bloody difficult! And one less coach - they forget sometimes that we do this out of love of the game and for our kids and VOLUNTEER our time (and money)...
Know many with similar feelings too.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 28, 2012 22:06:24 GMT
Don't you think that to say they were "pushed through" with 87% support of shareholders is a bit of a contradiction in terms, Robo ? As the figures indicate the very large majority of the County FAs who represent the "grass roots" supported it. I used my single share to vote in favour having been completely convinced by the debate at the FA Council a couple of months ago. Garreth Southgate on behalf of the FA Executive staff spoke passionately in favour today. Staffordshire FA were in fact one of the small minority who voted against (Peter Coates sent his apologies - don't know how he would have voted).
The age issue you mentioned is interesting. I was fascinated to learn at the Council presentation given by Garreth Southgate last time how kids whose birthdays fall in the 2nd half of school years are less likely to develop into top players. The proposals were designed to tackle that discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 1:35:46 GMT
I've hears a lot said about the standard of coaching and having a National plan to play in a certain way. Wouldn't this stiffle the ability of gifted players who just didn't fit the England mould? Would a tall centre forward whos great in the air be told to sod off and play basketball as we only play a passing game on the floor now? Or would we screem at a young Alan Hudson to pass it instead of running with the ball? Seems to me were trying to produce robots not footballers. Surely any style is good as long as the kids are enjoying themselves. Sure teach them the right way to pass , shoot , head , defend etc but dont't enclose them with a draconian style.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 29, 2012 5:00:25 GMT
Wouldn't this stiffle the ability of gifted players who just didn't fit the England mould?
No. It'd mean they get more time on the ball to develop technique. The problem isn't coaching the problem is the lack of quality coaching.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 29, 2012 6:59:58 GMT
The current setup of 7v7 up to under 10s works fine for me (although I would even look to reduce this to u9 as by 10 the pitches are fairly small for the kids who dont get a lot of time on the ball), its a fairly standard pitch setup from u7-10 so that the same pitches can get multi use No it's not, there's distinctive pitch size guidelines from the FA for the u7&U8 and the U9 & U10. U7's should not be playing on the same size as U10's. We have 3 different size pitches for ours, it's at this age where the young lads get spotted, close control, passing etc. on smaller pitches, not just hoofing and running around in packs (see TP ) , and hopefully in 15 years time they can change the England set up. For our 5v5 next season we will probably just cone off the required area on the 11 a side pitch
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 29, 2012 7:12:39 GMT
My experience is that kids are playing 11 a side too young which is why you get sides who are successful with a big old bruiser at the back belting it up to a fast lad and not much else.
I have to say though that Robo is right in saying that parents are the biggest problem. The desire to win at all costs is something to behold. It is obviously coached into kids at some clubs that you leg up opponents at every opportunity. This year I heard a mother from the opposite side of the pitch shout 'break his legs' when a teammate from my son's u13 team got past a defender. It's difficult but that is the mindset the FA should be focussing on.
|
|
|
Post by pickins on May 29, 2012 7:47:13 GMT
I can't see the problem with 11 v 11 from U11s onwards. The league has decided that we can only field one team of 9 next season. We have 21 kids. This idea of non competitive football being introduced for all U13s in 3 seasons is a bit of a sham too. My personal view is that the kids learn to use space on a larger pitch and helps to move them away from the GET IT - SMASH IT that had been drilled in by previous coaches. Training using small sided games ( 3 v 1.... 5 v 5 etc ) on micro pitches is brill and naturally makes them comfortable on the ball so to let them use that training in a real game environment on a larger field works really well. I agree that maybe 6 - 9 year olds don't need league structure but to leave it until 13 is a bit too late IMO.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on May 29, 2012 7:49:39 GMT
Don't you think that to say they were "pushed through" with 87% support of shareholders is a bit of a contradiction in terms, Robo ? As the figures indicate the very large majority of the County FAs who represent the "grass roots" supported it. I used my single share to vote in favour having been completely convinced by the debate at the FA Council a couple of months ago. Garreth Southgate on behalf of the FA Executive staff spoke passionately in favour today. Staffordshire FA were in fact one of the small minority who voted against (Peter Coates sent his apologies - don't know how he would have voted). The age issue you mentioned is interesting. I was fascinated to learn at the Council presentation given by Garreth Southgate last time how kids whose birthdays fall in the 2nd half of school years are less likely to develop into top players. The proposals were designed to tackle that discrimination. What is the point of moving the age cut in/out? Your only going to discriminate another group of kids born in certain months of the year. Any parents serious about their kids football development will have to get pregnant in April/May now instead of Jan/Feb ;D
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 29, 2012 7:55:37 GMT
Northwich - Rules state that if there is only one size available, then thats whats played on (mini soccer)
Rulebook says something like u7/8 can play on a min/max of 30/40 x 60/70, whereas u10 can play on min 40/50 x 70/80 (sizes are wrong, just for example)
So the largest u7/8 pitch can also be used for the smallest u9/10 pitch, which is what happens in most council venues as there isnt sufficient space to put two pitches
Thats great for u7/8, as they get lots of space for their little legs and bodies to play in
Its not so great for u10s as they are much (much!) bigger by then, and there is no space or time on the ball, and any hard pass thats not controlled goes out of play quickly!
Malcolm - I attended the roadshows, and our league has had 'consultation' evenings with the FA (a guy called Les who is Nick Levetts no2) - I had a long email discussion with both Les and Nick about my concerns, I do get the 9 a side ethos, but nobody yet has been able to answer my question on where all these facilities will magically appear from
You say cone out on another pitch - they are like gold dust locally, and are over used
In Biddulph we have a thriving junior football setup - my club Biddulph Town has 16 teams (u7-18), there is Biddulph Valley, Biddulph Tigers etc - around 25 teams in total playing on a Sunday
Add to that the 15 or so adult teams playing, and you can see where facilities are important
I've read that they want to play 9 a side by using blue markings on an adult pitch (penno box to penno box) - these guys have obviously never seen a council pitch in December/January when its just mud and no grass - the overuse of the pitches will ruin them completely.
From the conversations that I have had with my league (North Staffs Junior Youth League) they were vehermently against a number of elements of the proposals, as were the Potteries Mini and Youth Leagues when I played in there
It will be interesting to see if any leagues actually offer the game at under 8 any more due to the issues in facilities and costs
One thing I did say to Nick though, is that personally I would have recommended that there was NO league football for under 10s - for me there should be local development centres/soccer schools in each town/branch/district where the kids go to on a Saturday/Sunday morning, where they learn skills and ball control, passing and movement, and yes even the dirty word of defending properly, then perhaps having small sided games at the end of the session - this way the kids are educated, get plenty of ball time, and some sort of competitive games at the end to put their skills into place
This could take place at schools pitches, on artificial, no special equipment is needed bar some cones and perhaps some goals, no markings, and the coach is free to mix abilities in 'teams' at the end so that there isnt a one sided game.
That for me would have been better - parents not so caught up in the moment, kids learning in a fun and consistent environment, costs kept to a minimum
That in turn frees up space and pitch allocations, allows a 9v9 system for u12s, allows intermediate pitches for u13-15, and doesnt ruin adult pitches by putting silly markings on.
Still what do I know!
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 29, 2012 8:14:42 GMT
Joe - myself and most coaches I know work with the kids heavily on ball control, passing, movement etc, the image of coaches training kids to whack it forward and get rid is a bit of a myth in the media - there are some lovely passing teams in our league (Red St is a Stoke ex academy side, as are Blythe Bridge) who played teams off the park - we actually gave Red St a scare this season as they only beat us 1-0, my team defended like lions - that a good trait to learn too? Leek Town, Leek CSOB, Kidgrove Athletic etc all have excellent teams who play some great football to watch.
On the other hand there is nothing wrong with a quick pass upfield to play a striker in - football is about scoring goals and opportunities? I also hear parents grumbling about tackles being made - a good tackle is as important to learn as a good pass or shot?
So in coaching its not about just chucking some cones out and playing a game - I dedicate 2/3 of each session to ball work - if the kids work hard at it they get more game time at the end as a reward, but people forget that these kids are 7-11 years old, and they often just want to play a game of football with their mates! Its a tough mix to get right between them getting bored or disinterested. The Cuerver skills at Stoke are a great trainig tool, I'll be using some of that over the summer.
People need to get off coaches backs though, and remember we do this for free and for the benefit of the kids, and also remember that not all kids are capable of some of the Barca esque skills - they play to enjoy football, not because they are particularly brilliant at it!
The guy above is spot on with the age thing, you are just moving the goalposts and making some kids play with others in the year above them at school where trust me they will not enjoy it - when I mentioned it to my son (December born, is fairly slight in build and strength) he said he would rather not play as the older boys would be too strong for him - he struggles against kids his own yeargroup sometimes. On the other hand I have a number of April-June kids playing for me who look about 15..... the age thing is a complete misnomer - again, do it in academies, no need in park football.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 29, 2012 8:22:35 GMT
Isn't this really a bit like trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted? I'd like to hear TP's take on this.
H
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 29, 2012 10:15:32 GMT
For your cynicism RAF Pulis is right on board with the Coerver stuff at the Academy - they say it will be a 8-10 year programme to start churning out the elite of kids football (8-10 year olds now) but the club, TP included, have all bought into it and are spending something like £2.5m per year on it
They hammer home control, touch, movement, pace, both feet - they say its like muscle memory exercise so the kids dont have to think and just respond - gives them and millisecond edge over an opponent as they just accept controlling the ball as the norm, unlike us where we still have to think about it!
That said I doubt TP will have to select any of these kids in 8-10 years time, so it wont be his issue :-)
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 29, 2012 10:23:42 GMT
For your cynicism RAF Pulis is right on board with the Coerver stuff at the Academy - they say it will be a 8-10 year programme to start churning out the elite of kids football (8-10 year olds now) but the club, TP included, have all bought into it and are spending something like £2.5m per year on it They hammer home control, touch, movement, pace, both feet - they say its like muscle memory exercise so the kids dont have to think and just respond - gives them and millisecond edge over an opponent as they just accept controlling the ball as the norm, unlike us where we still have to think about it! That said I doubt TP will have to select any of these kids in 8-10 years time, so it wont be his issue :-) Fair enough Robo. Let's see how on board he is when his transfer budget for 'Front of House' is chopped. H
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 29, 2012 10:43:54 GMT
Thanks for the info Robo. Good to here your views mate.
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on May 29, 2012 10:49:17 GMT
Robo -
Just curious - take the extra cost and faff of posts, marking pitches out, etc, out of the equation, and if it was an option, would you prefer your lads to play 9v9 until they're 12/13 instead of moving to 11v11 now?
My lad's (B) team have finished bottom of their division after their first season of 11-a-side and their A team did similarly badly. One reason I think is that 3 7v7 teams were broken up to form 2 11's - that was a disruptive factor I think. Opting for 9v9 would maybe have allowed the core of those 3 teams to be retained + 2 extra on each. Another reason is the relatively young age of my son's team - alot of "late in the year" birthdays which has an effect on player size.
Some weeks they have been playing on full-size pitches with full-size goals and falling victim to clued-up strikers who have been told to lift the ball high past struggling 10-year old keepers - all 3 keepers at my lad's club are much less happy than last year and express a wish to "play out" more than they did. Other weeks, where teams have portable, slightly smaller goals and play on slightly smaller pitches, the games are more even and to be honest, better to watch.
I'm not saying 11v11 is a bad thing, but be prepared for some teams to get to grips with it sooner than others. Part way through the first half of last season, 2 teams from higher divisions were re-located to lower ones because they were struggling so much. The Warrington League took a vote last year and some teams "opted out" to start a 9v9 division - it would be interesting to hear their end of season reviews.
I would like to hear what the FA means by "non-competitive" - up here in Warrington, junior rugby league is "non-comp" til u14 (no league tabes are kept), but that doesn't stop it being taken seriously on a matchday. The problem is defo down to parents - and coaches. After two years of my lad playing junior footie, you get to hear which clubs have parents who have a reputation - and which coaches. Hand on heart, our coaches and parents are always praising our own players and often oppo players too when they do something well. That isn't echoed across the board though. Coach attitude dictates everything - even down to whether a club is prepared to offer opportunities for any lad or girl who wants to play football by setting up new teams or just be an fantasy manager ego-trip for wannabe-Sir Alex/Mancinis who want to coach "the best" right through to when their kid turns 18.
It was hard finding a team that was prepared to take on anyone new - even at under 10s - when my lad got interested enough to play for a team, but fortunately I dropped on one that was creating another 7-aside one in that age group at the right time.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 29, 2012 10:58:15 GMT
I think it's refreshing to see an informed and mature debate about an issue which is so important for the future of football, with contributions from posters who are qualified to speak on the subject ( in all those respects rather different IMHO from many of the endless and rather repetitively tedious and aggressive threads on here about the manager, style of play, slagging off individual players etc).
I am interested in your views, based on your experience, Robo., and it will be interesting to see whether these changes deliver the benefits expected of them.
It's not a subject on which I can claim any expertise or experience. At the FA AGM yesterday, I had to decide how to cast my single share vote - which I did in favour of the proposals on the basis of listening to the arguments yesterday - and much more fully at the previous debate at the FA Council.
As the vote was 679 in favour and 99 against, I don't think my little vote made much difference !
As a full member Club, Stoke City will also have had a vote ( which is separate from Peter Coates' vote - he is on Council as a Divisional represntative). I didn't see anyone from Stoke City there ( that's not unusual - very few full member clubs turn up) but of course they may have given a proxy vote to the Chairman or another member.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 29, 2012 11:15:15 GMT
Malcolm, how open is the voting process? You mentioned that the Staffordshire FA voted against, is there any way of finding out just how Stoke City or any other club voted? Is there any way of finding out if Coates cast a vote by proxy and, if so, how that vote was cast?
I'm all in favour of secret ballots when (for example) electing people to jobs, or electing MPs or councillors but votes like yesterday's should surely be recorded so that people can see how their representatives/clubs/local FAs etc. voted.
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 29, 2012 11:49:05 GMT
Interesting if the Staffs FA voted against - feedback from all the local leagues was fairly negative to the changes, mainly due i think to facilities
NNH - Got to be honest, I'm not that fussed by 9 a side, I am fairly lucky in that I was (until this season) the only u9 team in the town, so always had a squad of 11 available - come last summer all of a sudden I had 15 training, so to save disappointing a lot of kids, or having a squad so big that kids werent getting enough gametime, I managed to get another parent and some younger players (u9s playing u10) and formed a second team
I kept my guys together as we had been together since u7 with a squad of 9, and the other team had 9 as well, with the plan always being that I would take the older kids with me to 11 a side this season and the younger ones would remain in mini soccer - its easier to attract extra players if you are already established as a team
I was keen for all the kids to get as much experience as possible and to play football, as thats what its all about!
As luck would have it we drew each other in the branch cup semi finals (we were in different leagues), was a cracking game in the rain, we won 4-1 but it was a keenly contested and open affair!
Next year will be interesting - in Biddulph we are lucky to have an appropriate sized 3/4 pitch and goalposts, but i am aware that not all teams in our league will have them and the kids might find themselves on an intermediate/full size pitch
The FA is really strict on goal and pitch sizes for minis (goals are 12x6ft), its a shame they cant be so on junior football
9v9 i stranger still as it has a very odd shaped pitch (50x80 I think) and plastic goalposts that are 16x7 (mine next season are 21x7) - a lot of clubs will have a lot of expense to either upgrade mini soccer goals or buy new ones
North Staffs JYL (or Lads n Dads as it was!) is offering both this season due to demand from teams - a lot of the stronger teams in the league from last season are going 9v9, the other half of us are going 11s - will be really interesting in 2 years time when we all come back together to see if our experience of playing on the bigger pitch and using full rules has offset any advantage they see in 9v9 and continuing to play with minis rules
11v11 is a bigger pitch so not sure where the 'extra time on the ball' of 9v9 comes from
I will however have to work on explaing my 'offside trap' to the kids over the summer, as at 11s full rules come into effect! I wont be using my old Sunday teams tactic of just standing with your hand in the air shouting 'offside ref'... :-)
I have always worked with the principle that if they are trying hard, if they do their best, and as long as they are progressing then thats enough for me - and of course that they are enjoying it. Most kids are happy throwing two jumpers down on the park and organising a game, so all of these rules etc just make it more complicated for us to organise!
We lost our eventual cup final, but gave the team we played a proper good game - 2-0 down at halftime playing terrible, an inspiring team talk at half time, an early goal then we battered a team that finished 8 places above us (in a 12 team league), and had beaten us 7-1 earleir in the week, but ran out of puff and conceded twice in the last 3 minutes - was an excellent game, played in great spirit with both sets of parents and coaches respectful and appreciative of the spectacle the kids put on - at the end me and my guys had a big huddle, I told them not to be disappointed and to be proud, and wish their opposition well and congratulate them. Thats not trying to be twee or PC, I just coach with the attitude that its just kids football, and not to get too caught up in it - its easy to do with a last minute goal or dodgy decision (I do regret my 25 yard Mournhio dash down the touchline fist punching to celebrate a late winner away at a prev undefeated team earlier in the season! Was our first win!), but football without any passion would be boring, its about channelling it in the right way!
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on May 29, 2012 12:31:37 GMT
Robo - Are you entering any tournaments in the summer? We are putting in for one 7-a-side one - 3 teams if everyone's available. Will be interesting to see how they react going back to 7v7.
You're right about it being interesting when the 9v9's come back into 11v11. It could be the first test of the FA's theory about it improving players.
Tell you what - I wish all these junior teams in Biddulph had been around when I was my lad's age. I keep telling him how lucky he is - there are shedloads of clubs in Warrington since the 90's, but "In my day", it was the school team or nothing. And if you weren't good/big enough (which I wasn't), the only footie you got was jumpers for goalposts down Halls Road (aka the Sandhole). <-- Is that big breeze block wall still there on the bottom field?
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 29, 2012 12:55:31 GMT
Dont normally enter any to be honest Sime, by the time I've had a break and assembled the squad back together, done a bit of work, lose people (and me!) to summer holidays its usually time for the season to start again!
Will try to get a few friendlies in 11 a side before the season starts, which I presume will be more difficult as no posts will be up!
As for kids - luckly LnD had just started in Biddulph when I was a kid, I only played u15 for a season but had a job the year after (papers/bottling up at our pub!) so couldnt play - I was playing senior footy at 16 anyway in a pub team
That wall is still there lol - not sure for how long though, the council have had plans approved for a 'sports village' to be created down there with running track, tennis court etc - in their wisdom they are trashing all the football pitches (even though they are the best in Biddulph by a mile) and having only 1 mini soccer pitch on it, and moving all the football to Mill Hayes (which is already congested)
So that will be around 40 teams (6 mini soccer, 19 junior and 15 senior teams) needing facilities to play on one small venue, while the schools (inc the tens of thousands spent on the High Schools pitches) remaining dormant and unused. Ridiculous public money being spent for a change on a white elephant - people will still walk their dogs on Halls Road and let them cack on the running track and tennis court!
|
|
|
Post by knype on May 29, 2012 18:46:38 GMT
I agree that core skills need to be practiced and improved in all levels of football but tactics, fitness and a will to win is also needed, it is OK to have fancy dan players who are magicians with the ball but you also need the less gifted ones who like to tackle, fight for every ball and have sheer determination, these players also are needed in football, although sadly tackling is an art that we will soon lose to the game of football.
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 29, 2012 19:18:42 GMT
Thats right Lee. Having seen your tackling it seems it was lost back at your school too, as many a midfielder or forwards legs will testify lol
Is correct though, you need workers that will run through a brick wall in all teams to allow the artists to paint - even Barca have a few hatchet men.
|
|
|
Post by knype on May 29, 2012 19:35:34 GMT
Thats right Lee. Having seen your tackling it seems it was lost back at your school too, as many a midfielder or forwards legs will testify lol Is correct though, you need workers that will run through a brick wall in all teams to allow the artists to paint - even Barca have a few hatchet men. Robo, hard and fair tackling makes people as happy as a good throughball, football will become a non contact sport.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 29, 2012 20:40:10 GMT
As far as I know the voting isn't transparent at all, John. I don't think it even appears in the minutes. I've no idea what the reaction would be if a member asked for a list of who had voted how.
I would be surprised if either Peter Coates or Stoke City voted. Peter C. told me a few weeks ago that he was going to be on absent from this meeting but didn't mention anything about voting by proxy. I would guess that Stoke City are only likely to have voted if one side or the other actually chased them for a proxy vote. Given that Staffs FA were one of the small number of County FAs voting against, I suppose it's a bit more likely than it might otherwise have been that they did so.
Given it's secret ballot, you may wonder how I know that Staffs voted against - it's because there is a show of hands before a card vote is called for and I noticed Brian Adshead voting against. It's actually even more complicated than that. It is possible for a County to split their vote - so that for example if a county has, say, 20 shares, and the voting within that county was 3-1 they could split their 20 votes 15-5 i.e in the same proportion. I know that some counties did just that. For all I know, Staffs FA might have done that.
the reason for calling for a card vote is that the changes required a 75% vote to go through because they involve rule changes. That is a pretty high hurdle. And of course on the show of hands everyone is equal - 1 vote each - but the card vote is on number of shares when the counties, and particularly the large counties, have much greater weight.
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on May 30, 2012 11:14:56 GMT
Dont normally enter any to be honest Sime, by the time I've had a break and assembled the squad back together, done a bit of work, lose people (and me!) to summer holidays its usually time for the season to start again! Will try to get a few friendlies in 11 a side before the season starts, which I presume will be more difficult as no posts will be up! As for kids - luckly LnD had just started in Biddulph when I was a kid, I only played u15 for a season but had a job the year after (papers/bottling up at our pub!) so couldnt play - I was playing senior footy at 16 anyway in a pub team That wall is still there lol - not sure for how long though, the council have had plans approved for a 'sports village' to be created down there with running track, tennis court etc - in their wisdom they are trashing all the football pitches (even though they are the best in Biddulph by a mile) and having only 1 mini soccer pitch on it, and moving all the football to Mill Hayes (which is already congested) So that will be around 40 teams (6 mini soccer, 19 junior and 15 senior teams) needing facilities to play on one small venue, while the schools (inc the tens of thousands spent on the High Schools pitches) remaining dormant and unused. Ridiculous public money being spent for a change on a white elephant - people will still walk their dogs on Halls Road and let them cack on the running track and tennis court! Save The Sandhole Wall! lol ;D That was just the most bizarre thing ever when it appeared. People waited for months to see if it was the start of a building, but no - it just stood there like a modern-day Stonehenge for kids to use as goalposts/wickets etc. Robo - round here many of the Junior and High Schools allow their pitches to be used for training and matches for all the Junior teams that exist. I assume they make a charge for it which is a nice little earner - especially the schools blessed with all-weather pitches when winter rolls around. Do Biddulph schools not offer up their pitches for use? One other thing - ball size (no, titter ye not, mrs). Supermarkets and the like always have sports sections stocked with footballs - but they very rarely have anything other than size 5's. Considering that kids under 13 should be using size 4 or even 3's for little 'uns - why don't the FA/Mitre/Adidas etc get together with Tesco and the like and stock up on proper balls for kids. Some kind of voucher/PR/marketing-push to get kids playing with footballs that are actually sized for them to develop their core skills properly. Just a thought for the powers that be...
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 30, 2012 11:30:41 GMT
As far as I know the voting isn't transparent at all, John. I don't think it even appears in the minutes. I've no idea what the reaction would be if a member asked for a list of who had voted how. I would be surprised if either Peter Coates or Stoke City voted. Peter C. told me a few weeks ago that he was going to be on absent from this meeting but didn't mention anything about voting by proxy. I would guess that Stoke City are only likely to have voted if one side or the other actually chased them for a proxy vote. Given that Staffs FA were one of the small number of County FAs voting against, I suppose it's a bit more likely than it might otherwise have been that they did so. Given it's secret ballot, you may wonder how I know that Staffs voted against - it's because there is a show of hands before a card vote is called for and I noticed Brian Adshead voting against. It's actually even more complicated than that. It is possible for a County to split their vote - so that for example if a county has, say, 20 shares, and the voting within that county was 3-1 they could split their 20 votes 15-5 i.e in the same proportion. I know that some counties did just that. For all I know, Staffs FA might have done that. the reason for calling for a card vote is that the changes required a 75% vote to go through because they involve rule changes. That is a pretty high hurdle. And of course on the show of hands everyone is equal - 1 vote each - but the card vote is on number of shares when the counties, and particularly the large counties, have much greater weight. Cheers, Malcolm. All very depressing that the voting is not made public. As I said above, whilst there is a case for votes to elect PEOPLE being by secret ballot, there is rarely, if ever, a case for votes on a POLICY to be secret. How are any electors supposed to decide who is best to represent them if they have no idea how they vote on matters of policy? Imagine the justified outcry if votes in the House of Commons were by secret ballot instead of being recorded through the lobbies?
|
|