I’m sad. 8 IE per club to limit cartels that win titles with just 15 active clubs – fair enough.

But for us, the tiny alliances who boldly take our chances against the bigger ones, we’re heading straight for the abyss.

It’s a shame because we’re the ones getting the short end of the stick 🫤

No, precisely because it could lead to players leaving in the bigger deals

dudziak: non justement car ca peut entrainer des departs dans les ententes plus grosses, de plus je ne sait pas si on est limité à 8 IE, je sais que ca sera 80 à la place de 100 mais je crois qu'on peux encorer jouer 10 ie (à confirmé)

No, no, it’s definitely a maximum of 8IEs per club

Oh, right

dudziak: non justement car ca peut entrainer des departs dans les ententes plus grosses, de plus je ne sait pas si on est limité à 8 IE, je sais que ca sera 80 à la place de 100 mais je crois qu'on peux encorer jouer 10 ie (à confirmé)

Spoiler: none of the big clubs will be leaving.

Too many IEs = encourages large-scale agreements
Too few IEs = encourages large-scale agreements

At some point, we may need to be consistent in our messaging

sora02: Trop d’IE = favorise les grosses ententes
Peu d’IE = favorise les grosses ententes

À un moment faudra peut être, être coherent sur le discours

Of course, as with so many other topics, you’ll find opinions that say one thing and its exact opposite.
Everyone sees things from their own perspective.

It all depends on where you draw the line.
300 IE would certainly favour the big ones,
but 1 IE would certainly favour the small ones 😁

For there to be a fair bit of a balance between the big alliances and the small ones, it would take 50 for the big ones and 100 for the small ones – and even then, I’m not sure it would work.
I’ve come to terms with it myself and will be joining a big alliance soon
Yes, I’ve finally given up. It took me a while to do so, but with the recruitment issues, it’s impossible to compete with the big alliances now – unless you’re former members of big alliances and there are several of you starting a new project.
It’s not the number of people that will make a difference; it’s the ruthless recruitment system that some use to poach the best players from smaller teams
I’ve had 18 offers since I left my alliance; there was one I absolutely wanted to join, but I didn’t receive an offer from them. Now my decision is made – too late – and thank you to my future new alliance for welcoming my former members
Getting back to the match: 100 was fine; with 80 I’d do fewer – that’s good too for my youngsters or for taking part in a cup, for example

Some ‘small’ organisations today want to grow much faster than the ‘big’ ones did in their day.
Whilst this ambition is healthy, it appears to pose a genuine strategic problem that may help explain why certain projects run out of steam. The large organisations we know today did not succeed by magic in just one or two years. It took them much longer to build the stability they enjoy today, to iron out the teething problems, to manage conflicts, to create a genuine shared culture, and, above all, to maintain that high standard.

sora02: Trop d’IE = favorise les grosses ententes
Peu d’IE = favorise les grosses ententes

À un moment faudra peut être, être coherent sur le discours

I suppose you’re responding to dudziak, because I’m not talking about favouring the big leagues. I’m actually saying that this measure aims to favour collective agreements involving 30 high-performing clubs, as opposed to elitist agreements involving 15 elite clubs.

And we’re not playing in the same league. The SFMC, a merger of the FMC and the SF, is a micro-league that isn’t intended to rile anyone up. We’re absolutely not getting involved in the debate or the squabbles between the big leagues because:

1. it doesn’t concern us
2. we’re not interested in it
3. it will surely never affect us
4. it will surely never interest us
5. it isn’t, and surely never will be, our style

I was simply talking about the fate of micro-leagues. It’s not just the big leagues in this game.

Nitnelav: Certaines "petites" ententes veulent aujourd'hui grandir beaucoup plus vite que les "grosses" ne l'ont fait en leur temps.
​Si l'ambition est saine, cela semble poser un réel problème stratégique pouvant contribuer à expliquer l'essoufflement de certains projets. Les grandes structures qu'on connaît aujourd'hui n'ont pas réussi par magie en 1 ou 2 ans. Elles ont mis bien plus longtemps à construire leur stabilité d'aujourd'hui, à essuyer des plâtres, à gérer des conflits, à créer une vraie cu...

Personally, I get the impression that we’ve seen far too few new alliances springing up over the last few seasons – I mean new alliances with a major long-term project, a clear direction.

With all the experienced managers in this game, don’t tell me nobody would dream of setting up a new alliance… lol
Especially as setting up a new alliance costs just 5M.

Then there are also people who… as soon as they set up their own league, think that future recruits will come along naturally. Well, no! You have to go and find future recruits yourself, and once they’ve joined, you have to support them as well.

So yes, it takes a lot of time – several seasons, even – but as long as the alliance has a clear direction, ambition, a good team spirit and so on, it’ll be easier to keep hold of members who might be tempted to join a bigger alliance. Then again, as a well-known singer would say, you’ve got to want to want it, haha

I think it’s a shame that the ‘outsider’ aspect doesn’t really interest people much; it’s one of the reasons that made me want to found the ELU almost 100 seasons ago. Admittedly, the ELU has only won one alliance championship title in Season 70, but a title with the ELU is worth about fifty titles from the CP and LR combined, for example – I’m certainly exaggerating, but you get the idea! Haha
And anyway, the most important thing about a league is meeting as many great lads as possible who you want to play VF with and climbing higher up the league tables. :)

sora02: Trop d’IE = favorise les grosses ententes
Peu d’IE = favorise les grosses ententes

À un moment faudra peut être, être coherent sur le discours

We’ve had enough of these big deals! You’re taking it all!