Hello,
I know that my proposal certainly touches on a sensitive subject.
But it's been more than 2 years since I took over VF and the thing that struck me when I came back were agreements 1 and 2 (LR, LV, Le Cercle, En route pour la Gloire, Une chope entre pote...).
In an ideal VF I'd like to do away with these for 3 reasons:

• Ententes 1 have a much larger pool of clubs and can rotate players. It gives them a big advantage over other what I call "independent" agreements and it goes against what an agreement is, i.e. 50 clubs maximum.
• On the roleplay front, it's a shame to see 2s always on the podium in the 2nd division.
• I'm sure that having only independent agreements would be much more satisfying, interesting and fair for everyone.

I'm well aware that this system has existed for a long time now, and that these agreements must have a very specific organisation that's been in place for years.

Why not create a survey of all the D1 and D2 clubs to find out what they think first.

And then gently abolish these 2 agreements. For example, give 3 seasons to prepare for this transition.

Or create a separate division with only the "Ententes 2". A mini championship between them. But with conditions for joining their entente 1 (e.g. a maximum of 2 changes per season from entente 2 to entente 1 and vice versa).

Of course, this is just my opinion as a member of an independent agreement. My comments are my own. And with the greatest of respect, even for the agreements in question.
I think the debate deserves to be opened up.

Happy end of season to all

Oh, a classic rerun; a bit like La grande vadrouille.

I've always been part of big cartels and I was often on channel 2 and I'm very satisfied with it.

A 2 is used to let clubs in training, progressing, etc. give free access to these members to play IE in d2, d3, d4, etc. And this is an excellent thing. And that's an excellent thing. It also makes it possible to give a 2nd member the keys to a selection.
Then to positions of responsibility, etc.

Nothing is pejorative in a 2, when the agreement as a whole is well managed.
I've played for the ELU, as well as the Nexus, for whom it's important to all be in the same agreement. It's another way of doing things that I accept. Just as you should accept the other vision.

What amazes me is the guys who create agreements with no means, no people, who row, stagnate, and then slow down against the big agreements. Not so the ELU. Why continue to create agreements if they're poorly constructed? Don't pick on the big ones.
I'm sorry that the SV/Nxs merger didn't work out, because it was supposed to be a good thing, and it could have played a leading role.
I regret that historic agreements that are dying continue despite everything because they are the weight of history on them rather than dissolve or merge.

In short, I'm in favour of free management of the agreements...

But on the other hand, I would be open to an exclusive parallel championship where the 2 and 3 agreements meet, I think we have enough. I even think it would spice up the intra-agreement battle between the big agreements.

It won't do much to change the problem of agreements when they get to d1 and hit the wall.

at the same time, ententes 2 can only go as far as d2