Constitution 2014-15

Favouritism towards any team does not exist. The league could not be successful if this happened. We would not be growing in size (comparable to our rival leagues) if this was the case.

As I have said before if someone believes that the committee are not conducting themseleves in the right way you have the oppurtunity to vote us off at the AGM, I don't believe a single person objectioned when given the chance.

Likewise if you think you can help or put forward an alternative view you are welcome to join the committee and play an active role. If you are interested let me or any other committee memeber know and I will raise it at the next meeting.

Oily is spot on the decline in adult mens football is due to funding, facilities and lack of (national) FA focus on mens 11 v 11 football. There are currently moves to address this locally but costs are very difficult to address. As a league we are trying to do our bit (fees, signing on books, transfers all reduced).

If we can get through this season with less drop outs than in the past we will be in a much stronger position this time next year to conduct a more sensible consititution, we might even get a two up two down structure

Just saying how it seems....cant argue with me on how it looks can you

The perception and reality are often very different, but no I don't disagree on face value it looks harsh Bucko.

The key is OPEN and HONEST communication, engage with the league early and let them know what you are planning and keep them updated with any chages and you often find yourself in the division that is most suitable for you.

However, I know this is idealistic and if everyone managed this we wouldnt have pot hunters and no one to talk about lol

anyone that has ever attended a committee meeting will know that favouritism does not exist and never has done.

It may not be favouritism but in my time with the alliance league there were certainly people that seemed to know how to go about getting what they wanted better than the average punter. This is evident again this year in my opinion and typified by a comment I read that said "I guess we should have bitched and moaned"!
99% of people/clubs involved in the league assume that "what the league says goes" however when you highlight yourselves issues of clubs threatening not to play in a league etc.. and being moved accordingly you're opening up a can of worms. Besides how well did that work out last year?! The same teams that threatened got what they wanted and folded anyway.
I truly hope that somehow the Prem bucks the historical trend and all the teams end the season because if not it'll be a pathetically short season for most concerned AND the league will then have something to answer for. You know by now what has happened continually over the past few seasons in the higher divisions, you just can't look suprised if it happens again and say "how were we to know".
Fosse, Oadby, Thurmaston etc.. have taken the league at face value. They have answered the call for some more teams in the prem when honestly speaking they shouldn't necessarily have had to and in my opinion you have let them down. That division needed at least 2 more teams to guarantee a decent length season and also to allow for competitive games for some of the teams that have essentially done you a favor.
I have the worlds respect for what the committee have to do and indeed personally know some of the guys who I believe to be exceptional but this has been a cop out. It had been widely publicised that something needed to be done and then..... you didn't.
In the instance of the prem if you were simply going to leave it at 10 teams then Thurmaston should be down and Moshdock still in there (No offence to Moshdock this is not your fault but you also couldnt argue if the league had turned around and said sorry but thurmaston had a hell of a bad year and had to see it through to go down, that's the way it goes") Leicester Foxes should be promoted after winning div 1 on the same token (again I'm not saying this would have been right) but my point is your picking and choosing and it certainly gives off the air of favouritism even if (as I believe) it is not the case.

Congratulations Monsell

What are the congratulations for churchill?

  

Churchill wrote:

monsellwmc wrote:

Me and my lads are happy with whatever division we are put into. We just want to play football. I dont understand why teams do not want to compete in the prem. Isn't that the point of winning the lower divisions? To push for the very top.

L.K.F.C wrote:

It may not be favouritism but in my time with the alliance league there were certainly people that seemed to know how to go about getting what they wanted better than the average punter. This is evident again this year in my opinion and typified by a comment I read that said "I guess we should have bitched and moaned"!
99% of people/clubs involved in the league assume that "what the league says goes" however when you highlight yourselves issues of clubs threatening not to play in a league etc.. and being moved accordingly you're opening up a can of worms. Besides how well did that work out last year?! The same teams that threatened got what they wanted and folded anyway.
I truly hope that somehow the Prem bucks the historical trend and all the teams end the season because if not it'll be a pathetically short season for most concerned AND the league will then have something to answer for. You know by now what has happened continually over the past few seasons in the higher divisions, you just can't look suprised if it happens again and say "how were we to know".
Fosse, Oadby, Thurmaston etc.. have taken the league at face value. They have answered the call for some more teams in the prem when honestly speaking they shouldn't necessarily have had to and in my opinion you have let them down. That division needed at least 2 more teams to guarantee a decent length season and also to allow for competitive games for some of the teams that have essentially done you a favor.
I have the worlds respect for what the committee have to do and indeed personally know some of the guys who I believe to be exceptional but this has been a cop out. It had been widely publicised that something needed to be done and then..... you didn't.
In the instance of the prem if you were simply going to leave it at 10 teams then Thurmaston should be down and Moshdock still in there (No offence to Moshdock this is not your fault but you also couldnt argue if the league had turned around and said sorry but thurmaston had a hell of a bad year and had to see it through to go down, that's the way it goes") Leicester Foxes should be promoted after winning div 1 on the same token (again I'm not saying this would have been right) but my point is your picking and choosing and it certainly gives off the air of favouritism even if (as I believe) it is not the case.

Absolute bang on the nail mate i cudnt have said it better

L.K.F.C wrote:

It may not be favouritism but in my time with the alliance league there were certainly people that seemed to know how to go about getting what they wanted better than the average punter. This is evident again this year in my opinion and typified by a comment I read that said "I guess we should have bitched and moaned"!
99% of people/clubs involved in the league assume that "what the league says goes" however when you highlight yourselves issues of clubs threatening not to play in a league etc.. and being moved accordingly you're opening up a can of worms. Besides how well did that work out last year?! The same teams that threatened got what they wanted and folded anyway.
I truly hope that somehow the Prem bucks the historical trend and all the teams end the season because if not it'll be a pathetically short season for most concerned AND the league will then have something to answer for. You know by now what has happened continually over the past few seasons in the higher divisions, you just can't look suprised if it happens again and say "how were we to know".
Fosse, Oadby, Thurmaston etc.. have taken the league at face value. They have answered the call for some more teams in the prem when honestly speaking they shouldn't necessarily have had to and in my opinion you have let them down. That division needed at least 2 more teams to guarantee a decent length season and also to allow for competitive games for some of the teams that have essentially done you a favor.
I have the worlds respect for what the committee have to do and indeed personally know some of the guys who I believe to be exceptional but this has been a cop out. It had been widely publicised that something needed to be done and then..... you didn't.
In the instance of the prem if you were simply going to leave it at 10 teams then Thurmaston should be down and Moshdock still in there (No offence to Moshdock this is not your fault but you also couldnt argue if the league had turned around and said sorry but thurmaston had a hell of a bad year and had to see it through to go down, that's the way it goes") Leicester Foxes should be promoted after winning div 1 on the same token (again I'm not saying this would have been right) but my point is your picking and choosing and it certainly gives off the air of favouritism even if (as I believe) it is not the case.

there is certainly one team you have mentioned here that I would have had in the Premier without doubt and I made my point at a committee meeting but alas it wasn't to be. I don't know anything about Thurmaston personally but I did see someone on here saying they were in the process of signing good players that would give them a decent chance in the premier. As with everything, only time will tell, that includes Moshdock. In terms of some people getting what they want, I would say that some clubs or club secs are much more savvy than others, and have a better way of communicating what they want to get it. I don't know of any clubs who threatened to fold if they didn't get their own way, and indeed for all the Monsell posts didn't Adam say they would still see out their season in the Prem? I don't agree that the league did nothing about the gap in the top divisions - many sides have made significant jumps to make things more competitive, and both Fosse and Oadby deserve to be in there on merit. In the case of Oadby especially, that is very much the league 'doing something about it'. It would have been so easy to put them in Div 1 but I personally think they will do ok in the top flight (as will Fosse). I think steps have been taken this year that will actually strengthen the constitution next year as well. Once again, I have never seen or heard any examples of favouritism, and no one on the committee would entertain that idea. The constitution this summer was evidently exceptionally hard work, and there will always be inevitable fall outs because you will never please everyone.

Polska legend II wrote:

there is certainly one team you have mentioned here that I would have had in the Premier without doubt and I made my point at a committee meeting but alas it wasn't to be.

In terms of some people getting what they want, I would say that some clubs or club secs are much more savvy than others, and have a better way of communicating what they want to get it.

I don't know of any clubs who threatened to fold if they didn't get their own way,

In the case of Oadby especially, that is very much the league 'doing something about it'.

Once again, I have never seen or heard any examples of favouritism, and no one on the committee would entertain that idea.

All very good points there.

The thing about football is that there are so many opinions, usually based on rumour, making it very difficult from one individual to make a decision alone. This is why a committee is in place to make such decisisions. Opininons are aired and a decision is met.

I all fairness to Dennis, his comment suggesting that clubs threatened to fold was a little wide of the mark. I think he is talking baout past years.

If there was any favouritism then surely those clubs represented on the committee would be seeing some positive results of such behaviour. It is usually the opposite.

Lets be about right, the Prem isn't even what I'd class as Prem standard anymore... Why would you fear playing half of the teams in there?

Barcabullona - Never really achieved anything on a County Cup or league (weaker league too) level so far from world beaters. I'd predict mid table finish.

FC Azzurri - With new 'tempermental' management will retain some of the squad, but will need new additions - especially in the defensive area. I'd imagine a small squad will be there downfall though but decent set of lads who will be tough opposition.

Fosse City - Decent set of lads who have competed well in recent years against better opposition. With a team who will be there week in week out could be the leagues new Moshdock in my opinion and throw up some surprise results.

Frolesworth United - Decent footballers, decent lads, decent starting 11, decent clobber - However if last term in the Prem is anything to go by wont cope with physical teams or Sunday pitches. Fold and re-build in Div 2 with the SAME team? Manager is likeable however.

GT - Somehow manage to get results, mainly by fielding the same team every week - Top 5 finish - AWFUL KIT

Magna Town 2012 - Would expect them to struggle, not quite as well equipped as Fosse but never the less will spring a couple surprises.

Oadby Owls Mens - Decent young team who go about there business in the right way with good management in place. Would like to see them progress in a cup and have a decent season.

Star & Garter - Treble winners last year and just signed Aarron Preston - All the best

Thurmaston WMP 2009 - No idea what to believe with these. Shouldn't be in the Prem but need to just crack on now. Fair play though never folded last year, would love to see them do well - Surely can't be as bad as last term...?

Tomlin Allstars - Very Noisy new team - Seen them say they're signing everyone 3 weeks ago, now recent posts suggest those players have 'gone elsewhere' or 'not replying to txts'. Could be the first team to fold....

2 players said they were signing and have now gone elsewhere a little offended to the suggestion that we would be first to fold!!! Still got some good lads signed!!

cookie-monster wrote:

2 players said they were signing and have now gone elsewhere a little offended to the suggestion that we would be first to fold!!! Still got some good lads signed!!

I thought it was the Day brothers and Ryan Whatley? The fold is merely based on signing ex Azzuri players who were happy to play when winning but miraculously went missing end of the season...........

Don't be offended it's just an opinion...

Luke is a no go and ash apparantly is coming but don't really know to be honest it's Sundays so far we only have ash james whose my cousin, Lynton Hindz and Louie neckles from Azzuri signed I think and they will be there every week apart from Louie who occasionally goes on benders lol

I'll have the low down on Tomlin after we play them on Sunday.

I agree with L.K.F.C to an extent. We do feel slightly let down. We've always said we'd be happy in the Prem as long as there's plenty of teams in there that we can actually compete with. We are not a Premier League quality team and there's no doubt we will take some hidings in the season to come, but it looks like we're just gonna have to get on with it.

I do think we could've had some sort of warning from the league that they were dropping down to 10 teams after how strongly we urged them to go with 12. We will not be like most teams in the Prem who have 20-30 players signed on. If we are getting hammered every week it'll be tough to keep our 15 players interested.

They don't, but if the league did have favoured teams, I would've had us down as one of them, not anymore!  

I managed Gaunt FC last season and we considered crossing over to the alliance this season as we thought the Prem would be more competitive than the Charny Prem. After a committee meeting we decided to stay in the Charny and we were told we'd be part of a 10 team premier division. Whitwick compass have dropped out and now we are down to 9. Any more drop outs early in the season will make it another farce of a season. Maybe the Alliance league do have a few faults but believe me, it's still the best option by a distance.

The logistics of making a larger Sunday Premier League are tricky...

Most teams (you'd expect) will progress in the cups to the latter stages. Throw in the fact the Council will cancel games left / right and centre come Christmas, this already means that come the end of the season teams play 2-3 times a week. As they are Prem standard you'd expect most of these teams to be full of Saturday players also, who come the end of season will play twice a week.

For me this makes it impossible to increase the number of teams in the Prem else teams need 30 players signed on to choose from.

Here's a thought - The factors above in all fairness surely give the underdog teams a better shot of winning the league as they wont have that many games in one week...............?

Pete Mourinho wrote:

Oily is spot on the decline in adult mens football is due to funding, facilities and lack of (national) FA focus on mens 11 v 11 football.  There are currently moves to address this locally but costs are very difficult to address.  As a league we are trying to do our bit (fees, signing on books, transfers all reduced).  

Not seen any comments about this response by the League to complaints from clubs about costs.
The league has moved heaven and earth in obtaining worthwhile sponsorship to make this happen. This is the sort of thing Alliance committee members do in the background without making a song and dance about it. It goes un-noticed and with little thanks, but it carries on.

Aussie Owl wrote:

Pete Mourinho wrote:

Oily is spot on the decline in adult mens football is due to funding, facilities and lack of (national) FA focus on mens 11 v 11 football.  There are currently moves to address this locally but costs are very difficult to address.  As a league we are trying to do our bit (fees, signing on books, transfers all reduced).  

Not seen any comments about this response by the League to complaints from clubs about costs.
The league has moved heaven and earth in obtaining worthwhile sponsorship to make this happen. This is the sort of thing Alliance committee members do in the background without making a song and dance about it. It goes un-noticed and with little thanks, but it carries on.

Are they the costs that the league had previously increased (substantially) and then upon receiving sponsorship reduced them to a level that was still over and above the original cost? Looks like a smokescreen to me....

GaryNev wrote:

Aussie Owl wrote:

Pete Mourinho wrote:

Oily is spot on the decline in adult mens football is due to funding, facilities and lack of (national) FA focus on mens 11 v 11 football.  There are currently moves to address this locally but costs are very difficult to address.  As a league we are trying to do our bit (fees, signing on books, transfers all reduced).  

Not seen any comments about this response by the League to complaints from clubs about costs.
The league has moved heaven and earth in obtaining worthwhile sponsorship to make this happen. This is the sort of thing Alliance committee members do in the background without making a song and dance about it. It goes un-noticed and with little thanks, but it carries on.

Are they the costs that the league had previously increased (substantially) and then upon receiving sponsorship reduced them to a level that was still over and above the original cost? Looks like a smokescreen to me....

Off the top of my head and without digging out the numbers I would have to check......but I believe the above is only correct for Signing on books (£20 to £40 to £30),

Transfers went from £10 to £20 to £10.
Fees went from £90 to £120 to £80

If I have the above wrong Gordon will no doubt correct me

The point Dennis is making is that the league could continue to increase fees regardless, but hasn't

Doesnt matter what you do some people will never be happy

Pete Mourinho wrote:

GaryNev wrote:

Aussie Owl wrote:

Pete Mourinho wrote:

Oily is spot on the decline in adult mens football is due to funding, facilities and lack of (national) FA focus on mens 11 v 11 football.  There are currently moves to address this locally but costs are very difficult to address.  As a league we are trying to do our bit (fees, signing on books, transfers all reduced).  

Not seen any comments about this response by the League to complaints from clubs about costs.
The league has moved heaven and earth in obtaining worthwhile sponsorship to make this happen. This is the sort of thing Alliance committee members do in the background without making a song and dance about it. It goes un-noticed and with little thanks, but it carries on.

Are they the costs that the league had previously increased (substantially) and then upon receiving sponsorship reduced them to a level that was still over and above the original cost? Looks like a smokescreen to me....

Off the top of my head and without digging out the numbers I would have to check......but I believe the above is only correct for Signing on books (£20 to £40 to £30),

Transfers went from £10 to £20 to £10.  
Fees went from £90 to £120 to £80

If I have the above wrong Gordon will no doubt correct me

The point Dennis is making is that the league could continue to increase fees regardless, but hasn't

Doesnt matter what you do some people will never be happy

The league could technically increase fees regardless, but as they are providing a service, for which they are not the sole supplier (although IMO the best) the customer (teams) would eventually look elsewhere (LSL CSL HSL).

I personally will never buy into the league 'helping' teams out whilst their bank account continues to swell. (Again correct me if i'm wrong?)

GaryNev wrote:

Pete Mourinho wrote:

GaryNev wrote:

Aussie Owl wrote:

Pete Mourinho wrote:

Oily is spot on the decline in adult mens football is due to funding, facilities and lack of (national) FA focus on mens 11 v 11 football.  There are currently moves to address this locally but costs are very difficult to address.  As a league we are trying to do our bit (fees, signing on books, transfers all reduced).  

Not seen any comments about this response by the League to complaints from clubs about costs.
The league has moved heaven and earth in obtaining worthwhile sponsorship to make this happen. This is the sort of thing Alliance committee members do in the background without making a song and dance about it. It goes un-noticed and with little thanks, but it carries on.

Are they the costs that the league had previously increased (substantially) and then upon receiving sponsorship reduced them to a level that was still over and above the original cost? Looks like a smokescreen to me....

Off the top of my head and without digging out the numbers I would have to check......but I believe the above is only correct for Signing on books (£20 to £40 to £30),

Transfers went from £10 to £20 to £10.  
Fees went from £90 to £120 to £80

If I have the above wrong Gordon will no doubt correct me

The point Dennis is making is that the league could continue to increase fees regardless, but hasn't

Doesnt matter what you do some people will never be happy

The league could technically increase fees regardless, but as they are providing a service, for which they are not the sole supplier (although IMO the best) the customer (teams) would eventually look elsewhere (LSL CSL HSL).

I personally will never buy into the league 'helping' teams out whilst their bank account continues to swell. (Again correct me if i'm wrong?)

Thats a bit harsh. I've played in other leagues before and the commitment from up high has been nothing compared to the time and effort put into this one. The league in general is very well run and very organised, almost 100% of the time we have a referee (which if you have played in other leagues is nothing to take for granted), and even the time and effort managing things like this forum shouldn't be forgotten. The accusation that its run as a cash cow is a bit unjust, they do a good job.

stevepercy wrote:

GaryNev wrote:

Pete Mourinho wrote:

GaryNev wrote:

Aussie Owl wrote:

Pete Mourinho wrote:

Oily is spot on the decline in adult mens football is due to funding, facilities and lack of (national) FA focus on mens 11 v 11 football.  There are currently moves to address this locally but costs are very difficult to address.  As a league we are trying to do our bit (fees, signing on books, transfers all reduced).  

Not seen any comments about this response by the League to complaints from clubs about costs.
The league has moved heaven and earth in obtaining worthwhile sponsorship to make this happen. This is the sort of thing Alliance committee members do in the background without making a song and dance about it. It goes un-noticed and with little thanks, but it carries on.

Are they the costs that the league had previously increased (substantially) and then upon receiving sponsorship reduced them to a level that was still over and above the original cost? Looks like a smokescreen to me....

Off the top of my head and without digging out the numbers I would have to check......but I believe the above is only correct for Signing on books (£20 to £40 to £30),

Transfers went from £10 to £20 to £10.  
Fees went from £90 to £120 to £80

If I have the above wrong Gordon will no doubt correct me

The point Dennis is making is that the league could continue to increase fees regardless, but hasn't

Doesnt matter what you do some people will never be happy

The league could technically increase fees regardless, but as they are providing a service, for which they are not the sole supplier (although IMO the best) the customer (teams) would eventually look elsewhere (LSL CSL HSL).

I personally will never buy into the league 'helping' teams out whilst their bank account continues to swell. (Again correct me if i'm wrong?)

Thats a bit harsh. I've played in other leagues before and the commitment from up high has been nothing compared to the time and effort put into this one. The league in general is very well run and very organised, almost 100% of the time we have a referee (which if you have played in other leagues is nothing to take for granted), and even the time and effort managing things like this forum shouldn't be forgotten. The accusation that its run as a cash cow is a bit unjust, they do a good job.

I never questioned the product (the league). However, it doesn't seem fair for the league to state they have reduced fees when the season before they raised them! What is the need for this increase? Take this for example (going with Pete's numbers):-

70 teams paying £90 in season 2013 = £6,300
70 teams paying £120 in season 2014 = £8,400
70 teams paying £80 in season 2015 = £5,600

The league have made an extra £2,100(8,400-6,300) in season 2014 compared to the basic £90 fees charged previously. Now they drop the fees to £80 for a season resulting in a loss compared to season 2013 of £700 (6,300-5,600). Therefore there is a surplus of £1,400 (2,100-700) gained form these 'reduced fees'.

Of course you had to also consider that the league lost around £2,500-£3,000 per year in sponsorship hence the increases, the new sponsorship that is on board is not at the same value between £1,500-£2,000 and for 2013 there was no sponsorship at all so a loss of

£2,500 in 2013 and at least £1,000 on top of this for the next two years (conservatively) your £1,400 has been eaten up pretty quick.

Of course, the finances of the league are more complex than just sponsorship & league fees. But the league does not run to make a profit. No individual or group of individiuals benefit from this. On the flip side we intend to be sustainable and aim to continue to grow, there is a balance to be struck and if the league can breakeven at the end of the season, then in the long term we all benefit.

you're only talking membership fees though and not transfers or signing on books.

I think the point is being missed that by quoting the 'league is reducing fees, transfer books etc' when in reality they're not.

What is the Alliance Leagues net figure at the end of their financial year for the past say 5 seasons?

Can't tell you off the top of my head

There was a surplus last year hence the reduction this year, but that was on the back of two years running at a deficit

That's fair enough. Let's hope they continue to make a surplus so we can finally see a reduction in costs all round!

Just found this post...

Aussie Owl wrote:

Now is the time for 12 in the Prem which effectively means combining Prem and Div 1, with the addition of new teams of that standard. Any less than 12 would mean the inevitable mid-season resignations would result in insufficient games and the status of the competition being reduced.

Other Divisions should have 12 teams with possibly 13 or 14 in the bottom two divisions. I  am sure this would not be a problem for James.

Polska legend II is right. The Prem should no longer have the fear factor for those being promoted because the 'outstanding teams are no longer there.

What's changed since then? Other than a few teams saying they're not keen on playing in the Prem?

please note that accounts are available for inspection at AGM and questions can be readily asked

Id be amazed if we make mid table as an earlier poster suggests... We have a decent enough 11 but sometimes when availability is bad we are terrible.

You will be well fed in the pub though and will always play at Broughton Park almost regardless of the weather.

Looking forward to the season...
Sam

lsl only has 32 teams this season, they only have 13 in the top 2 divisons

tysmith c.n.f.c wrote:

lsl only has 32 teams this season, they only have 13 in the top 2 divisons

6 in Premier and 7 in Division 1.

Would be interesting to know their thinking on maintaining 4 divisions. CSL has one more team and only 3 divisions.

HSL have 8 in their Prem and CSL have 9 compared to 10 in the Alliance.

Yes it would have been good to have 12 - maybe next year but the number of resignations in key. As always, when a club resigns, they let everyone down. 

The LSL don't believe they have any choice, only way they could get a ball kicked this year was 6 and 7 in their top two divisions

With 8 in Hinckley and 9 in Melton & Charnwood and the 6/7 that the LSL have been forced to start with I would like to think the Alliance Committee would be getting some credit for 10 and 10......


............No didnt think so   

cookie-monster wrote:

Luke is a no go and ash apparantly is coming but don't really know to be honest it's Sundays so far we only have ash james whose my cousin, Lynton Hindz and Louie neckles from Azzuri signed I think and they will be there every week apart from Louie who occasionally goes on benders lol

spoke to ash day aint playing sundays seemed amazed hed been linked with tomlin,lol

Pete Mourinho wrote:

The LSL don't believe they have any choice, only way they could get a ball kicked this year was 6 and 7 in their top two divisions

With 8 in Hinckley and 9 in Melton & Charnwood and the 6/7 that the LSL have been forced to start with I would like to think the Alliance Committee would be getting some credit for 10 and 10......


............No didnt think so   

they deserve some plaudits for keeping the alliance up there!!!93 teams great effort!
lsl are almost finished the rumoured link up with the charnwood league never occured so be interesting to see if they survive,