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

dudziak: en meme temps les ententes 2 ne peuvent aller plus loin que la d2

The first point in leniav's post seems to go some way towards explaining the problematic aspect of the fact that, for want of a better word, an entente 2 occupies the top spots in D2:

The D2 level is very competitive: several agreements yo-yo almost every season and "new" agreements structured with time and patience can perform over a season when conditions allow.

By stagnating at the top of the table, and even if this in no way prevents the next-placed teams from moving up, entente 2 maintains a level of competitiveness equivalent to that of D1 (more or less, come on...), which means that the potential number of players eligible for entente 1 is - well - greater. One might get the impression that, rather than embodying the antechamber of the best, entente 2 is taking on the characteristics of an entente 1 bis in sporting, strategic and financial terms.

If you think about it for a moment, you'll realise how interesting such a position can be from a competitive point of view, but you'll also see the managers raising their eyebrows.

And why not put a cap on the number of 2s in D3? By creating a two-division gap, this would create a sporting vacuum big enough to boost the competitiveness of the younger teams, as well as providing a great opportunity for the teams concerned (whose identities are no secret) to once again demonstrate their maturity and ability to adapt.

This would obviously lead to a certain reorganisation, at a very broad level of cohesion, which should lead those concerned to defend their piece of the pie in the expected manner. You can't change good habits overnight. However, I remain convinced that the medium-term impact would make the dynamic of the cartel sector more attractive because it would be more competitive.

Perhaps the discussion has already taken place, perhaps on many occasions, perhaps the time is more favourable for this discussion, perhaps not, whatever the case, I am leaning more towards the reformers on this subject.

There would be no need for all these repetitive debates if there were, once and for all, a radical reform that had already been proposed several times and that would restore everyone's interest:

• 1°) An agreement championship with divisions of 8 and not 16 (and two or three ascents/descents per season, so no "soft bellies" and no agreements that are freewheeling in a division throughout the season) and with 7 IS matches against the 7 other agreements in the division.
• 2°) a specific championship with several divisions, if necessary, for agreements 2 or 3

Juste avant les arrêtêts des ententes 2 faudrait penser avant a arrêter les ententes 3 😁 😁 😁

If I may say so, eight-team cartel championships to avoid small cartels getting into D1? Is that your plan?
Sorry for the short notice but people are working their arses off trying to get into d1 with few weapons because the big clubs are refusing to join you, making it clear in passing that we will never get into d1 with the current members.
The 16-team cartel championship is very good, but it would kill off the small cartels because we would always have the same teams in d1.
Aymeric since it was proposed to him to make a championship bis for the agreements 2 and 3 never did it frankly get used to meet these agreements and adapt you
The abolition of agreements 2 and 3 I was one of the first to want a championship but today I say that it is useless.
Let's all move forward together and it's up to us to adapt to the game, not the other way round.

I share certain opinions, a reduced D1, I might not go up to 8. We'll say 12 with max two relegations, the gap between the agreements is too big, to have closer duels.

And personally, I understand the frustration surrounding the 2/3 agreements, and that it's a bit of a stain to see promoted teams in 3rd, 4th and 8th place (I'm making that up).

I'd put the ententes bis in a parallel division that has nothing to do with the others. There are a lot of us "ententes bis" and it's still a nice challenge to beat the others. I'll add a request that has been mentioned elsewhere (add a line to the prize list for divisions 2, 3, etc and this special division.

This is my personal opinion.

And a thorough overhaul of the individual championships too. But that's a lot of work.

kiki-sainté: Si je peux me permettre les championnats d entente a huit pour éviter que des petites ententes arrivent en d1 ? C est ça votre projet ?
Désolé du terme d avance mais des gens se casse le cul a essayer de monter en d1 avec peu d armes car les gros clubs refusent de se joindre a vous en précisant bien au passage que jamais on arrivera en d1 des ententes avec les membres actuels
Le championnat d entente a 16 est très bien .moins ça serait tuer les petites ententes car on aurait toujours les mê...

Honestly, the gap between the top 4 in D1 and the bottom 5-6 is abysmal!

That's why, every season in D2, the clubs go up with a 1.3/1.4 ratio, which is relatively low, too low to have any hope of staying in D1.

There are always the same problems (club afk in matches, teams too weak, the 100 IEs matches not achieved, etc.).

This is not a criticism, but a fact.

Other solutions abolish agreements 2 and 3 put 100 members in the agreements no more agreements 2 and 3 (prohibition to create one)
We leave the championships to 16 clubs or other solution we stop the entente classification and we go back all the ententes are in the classification no more division
There are plenty of choices, but we have to reduce the number of agreements from 20 to 16. Are we going to have 36 divisions?

Ced90: Honnêtement, l’écart entre les 4 premiers de D1 et les 5-6 derniers est abyssal !

C’est pourquoi chaque saison en D2 les ententes montent avec des 1,3/1,4 de ratio ce qui est relativement faible, trop pour espérer perdurer en D1.

Toujours les mêmes problèmes (club afk en match, équipes trop faibles, les 100 matchs IEs pas réalisés etc…)

Attention ce n’est pas une critique, mais un fait

I agree with you, but it's shooting small agreements in the foot to once again deny them 1st division rankings.

kiki-sainté: Je suis d accord.avec toi mais la c est tirer une balle dans le pied des petites ententes de les renier encore une fois des classements de 1 ere division

Yes I completely understand, but also look at the problem in reverse 😁
Facing a team with 700-750 stats with an absent manager in the "elite" division isn't crazy

And that's 1 in 4 games today

Ced90: Oui je comprends tout à fait, mais regarde aussi le problème à l’inverse 😁
Affronter une équipe qui a 700-750 de stats avec un manager absent en division « élite », c’est pas dingue

Et c’est 1 match sur 4 aujourd’hui

I understand, but what we've been doing all along has been to show that we also exist in the other direction.

kiki-sainté: Je comprends mais on fait depuis le début que dans le sens des grosses ententes s etait justement pour faire voir que dans l autre sens on existe aussi

Maybe, but because small clubs can't have ambitions to be at the top of the table? It's as if Ecotay Moingt were complaining that the FFF is doing everything it can to stop them climbing to L1. Well, you can have 8/12/16/20/40 clubs in Division 1, but the small clubs are either easy pickings for the big clubs or are unable to last more than one season in Division 1.

Now that we've said that, how can we improve the playing experience of the "small" associations? The subject of second-tier agreements is a false problem. Even if they were removed from Division 2, the fact remains that some clubs would still suffer heavy defeats in matches. It's not certain that the playing experience would be optimal!

kiki-sainté: Je suis d accord.avec toi mais la c est tirer une balle dans le pied des petites ententes de les renier encore une fois des classements de 1 ere division

Without wishing to be unkind, you yourself classify your agreement as "small", so it's not yet ready for the upper echelon.
And I'm against being 100 in a single entente, I much prefer the option of a separate division.

Be careful, otherwise any agreement could deliberately separate on paper, keeping a common discord, and in the end you end up with a 1 and 2 under different names but both in D1 and less room for the others. Everyone is free to play for the agreement of their choice. We're talking about affinities between groups of humans.

Rull43: Sans méchanceté, tu classes toi même ton entente comme "petite", elle n'est donc pas encore prête pour l'échelon supérieure.
Et je suis contre être 100 ds une entente seule entente, je préfère nettement l'option d'une division séparée.

Attention sinon n'importe quelle entente pourrait faire exprès de se séparer sur le papier, on garde un discord commun, et au finale tu te retrouves avec une 1 et 2 sous d'autres noms mais les deux en D1 et moins de place pour les autres. Chacun est libre de ...

Yes my agreement it is not the lr the chope the rtg the afu or others but if one does not leave us a chance to become it one will never be it after to develop that the large agreements it is not either a solution

kiki-sainté: Oui mon entente ce n est pas la lr la chope la rtg les afu ou d autres mais si on nous laisses pas une chance de le devenir on ne le seras jamais après valoriser que les grosses ententes ce n est pas non plus une solution

How does it make them feel better to reduce the number of cartels in the rankings? Do you think there is a need for this?

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. What would you want if you had the power to change things?

dudziak: en meme temps les ententes 2 ne peuvent aller plus loin que la d2

This was done to make D1 more competitive, at a time when the sister agreements had access to D1 it had become complicated to manage.

Half of the D1 was made up of cartels and the other half of sister cartels, with the change in the ban on IEs between the same cartel to stop matches being arranged, which is also why IEs became random and not visible until accepted by another manager.

Don't think that these changes just came about, whether some people like it or not, all these changes were also requests from the community at the start, just as there are other requests.

aloisio: En quoi cela les valorise de réduire les ententes au sein du classement ? Penses tu qu’il y ait besoin de cela ?

J’ai du mal à comprendre ton propos, que souhaiterais tu toi de ton côté si t’avais le pouvoir de faire changer les choses ?

If we no longer have access to div 1 there's no point in continuing the agreement our goal is to move up to d1 and settle there if you put together a group of 8 agreements we'll need at least 20 more seasons to get there if we're lucky.
It's been 15 seasons since I created my agreement and we've had to train some members and others we've had to strengthen now that we've had 2 seasons in a row in d2. We'd like to make the switch between d1 and d2 before settling in with reinforcements (hoping that some members will join us) in d1 but if there are 8 clubs it's not even worth hoping for, or else in 20 seasons as mentioned above.
Just because we're in div 2 or 3 doesn't mean we don't have ambitions, especially when you're starting from nothing.

kiki-sainté: Si on n a plus accès a la div 1 ça sert a quoi de continuer l entente notre but est de monter en d1 et s y installer si tu met un groupe de 8 ententes œil nous faudra encore 20 saisons mini pour y accéder si on a de la chance
Ça fait 15 saisons que j ai créé mon entente on a du former certains membres d autres on dut se renforcer maintenant qu on fait une 2 eme saisons d affilé en d2 on voudrait faire la bascule entre la d1 et la d2 avant de s installer avec des renforts (en espérant que des...

I think it's not a question of the season but rather of management, my friend.
If you manage to motivate 10 15mecs to form a team and you all arrive at the same time motivated even with 8 agreements you can do it.

hazard14: Je pense que cest pas une question de saison mais plutôt de gestion l ami.
Si tu arrive a motivé 10 15mecs a former une équipe et que vous arrivez tous en même temps en étant tous motivé même avec 8 ententes vous pourrez le faire.

It's a dream Joseph oups hazard 😁😁😁 t'as qu'a voir notre saison on est pas trop mal pour le moment pour ça que si ça passe a 8 on est foutu 😁😁😁😁

kiki-sainté: C est un rêve Joseph oups hazard 😁😁😁 t as qu a voir notre saison on est pas trop mal pour le moment pour ça que si ça passe a 8 on est foutu 😁😁😁

Yes, but then again, D1 is another level, and if you end up there and have a season where you score less than 100 points (which happens regularly with up-and-coming teams)...

I think everyone will be disgusted.

Ced90: Oui mais encore une fois la D1 c’est un autre niveau, si ensuite vous y êtes et que vous faites une saison à moins de 100 points (ce qui arrive régulièrement avec les ententes qui montent)

Tout le monde sera dégoûté je pense

Yes, but if we do the lift, we're happy because we've started from nothing. Then, to each his own point of view, we do the lift 2 times and then we settle in, we come to see a season, see our level and once we've had a taste, we come back.

kiki-sainté: Oui mais si on fait l ascenseur on est content vu qu on a démarrer de rien après chacun son point de vue on fait 2 fois l ascenseur et après on s installe on vient pour voir une saison voir notre niveau et une fois qu on a goûté on revient

I hope you find members who want to join your project, but as I said in a previous thread, it's becoming difficult to recruit for small clubs and even for clubs that have been in D1 for several seasons.

kiki-sainté: Si on n a plus accès a la div 1 ça sert a quoi de continuer l entente notre but est de monter en d1 et s y installer si tu met un groupe de 8 ententes œil nous faudra encore 20 saisons mini pour y accéder si on a de la chance
Ça fait 15 saisons que j ai créé mon entente on a du former certains membres d autres on dut se renforcer maintenant qu on fait une 2 eme saisons d affilé en d2 on voudrait faire la bascule entre la d1 et la d2 avant de s installer avec des renforts (en espérant que des...

So your ambition is to stay in Division 1, is that it?
If then you get desoldered and do the yoyo à la messine, that's ok with you?
You understand that it's not a viable direction for A45, which has to look to renew its game and, by the same token, change its contours.
It's like the clubs, if I'm following you: should we block Skyz for a week in Afk to give the members of his league a chance?

I understand what you want or are looking for, but you can't ask others to "finance" your difficulty in showing the project to its best advantage. L7C is the latest agreement to try its luck, and if it succeeds, you'll say it's a big deal too?

When all is said and done, what would you recommend to improve the playing experience of small cartels? Small in the sense of competition, I'm not denigrating.

aloisio: Donc votre ambition est de rester en division 1, c’est ça?
Si ensuite si vous vous faites dessouder et faites le yoyo à la messine, c’est ok pour vous ?
Tu comprends bien que c’est pas une direction viable pour un A45 qui doit chercher à renouveler son jeu et par la même en modifier les contours
C’est comme pour les clubs si je te suis : faudrait qu’on bloque Skyz une semaine en Afk pour laisser une chance aux membres de son championnat ?

Je comprends ce que tu veux ou cherches mais tu ne...

You can't compare an agreement like the 7th Company to the nwo wolfpack. They started straight away with big members compared to us who only started with members who were totally rebuilding or the club was desperate and wanted to stop the game.
Today, most of these clubs are still around and I've motivated them to play vf again.
I've also had the support of members I didn't know at all and others I knew who joined me.
For me, the 7th company will become a great agreement, yes, and that's normal, which works for all the agreements in the other divisions.
After that, you can't live only for the big agreements either, and the prize list line would be nice for the other divisions.

But the comparison first came from you: comparing small and large agreements. They're not really comparable, and each deserves to exist, of course! But you can't say that we should stop developing the game because that would favour the big clubs. Whatever the change, they'll always be "ahead", that's my point.
On the other hand, yes, with a prize list line for the lower divisions, that would make life better for everyone. And with 8-team leagues, the Division 2 and 3 titles would have a nice flavour too!

kiki-sainté: Si on n a plus accès a la div 1 ça sert a quoi de continuer l entente notre but est de monter en d1 et s y installer si tu met un groupe de 8 ententes œil nous faudra encore 20 saisons mini pour y accéder si on a de la chance
Ça fait 15 saisons que j ai créé mon entente on a du former certains membres d autres on dut se renforcer maintenant qu on fait une 2 eme saisons d affilé en d2 on voudrait faire la bascule entre la d1 et la d2 avant de s installer avec des renforts (en espérant que des...

Kiki, the L7C agreement comes straight from D5, it will be in D2 next season and will possibly go straight into D1. I'm sorry, but do you want help? Did they get help?

The others are doing it. You just need the right project, the right people, the right timing and so on.

I don't understand your admission of weakness. I mean, OK, it's hard, nobody's forcing you to do it. I've just never got into it...
Do you want to do it because we're making life difficult for other people? Or because you're making your own?

PS I forgot, congratulations on the level of your agreement already. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

Rull43: Kiki, l'entente L7C arrive tout droit de D5, elle sera en D2 saison prochaine et va possiblement passer directement en D1. Je m'excuse mais tu veux de l'aide? Ils ont eu de l'aide?

Les autres le font. Faut juste le bon projet, les bonnes personnes, le bon timing, etc.

Je ne comprends pas ton aveu de faiblesse. Je veux dire ok c'est dur, personne ne t'y oblige. Je ne me suis jamais lancé dedans justement...
Tu veux y arriver car on complique la vie aux autres? Ou parce que tu montes la tie...

A deal from d5 but with d1 members that's all i said yes they will go to d1 their initial places with rtg for the most part
I didn't say they didn't have any merit I just said that the members already had all or most of the competitive teams it's different compared to the nwo where we had to build everything and help as many members as possible.
I'm going to stop answering now because it doesn't help the initial topic and I'm against both being deleted.

As Kiki says, you're comparing the incomparable.
I started fym from scratch like Kiki.
We worked hard to reach the grail (now I'm sure it's impossible or almost).
Once you've got the titles and the reputation, it goes a lot quicker.
If you already have the core (as Kiki said on the agreements quoted) the rest is much simpler.
The fym is a fine example, able to sleep for x season and from one day to the next tomorrow it can play the title or not far.
A lambda agreement will not have this facility.

minadinho: Comme dit kiki vous comparez l’incomparable.
J’ai démarré la fym de zero comme Kiki.
ont as cravaché dur pour en arriver au graal .( maintenant je suis sur ça reste impossible ou presque )
Une fois les titres acquis et la réputation ça va bien plus vite .
Si tu as dejas le noyaux ( comme dit kiki sur les ententes cité ) le reste et bien plus simple .
La fym et une belle exemple , capable de dormir pendant x saison et du jours au lendemain demain ça peut rejouer le titre ou pas loins .
Une e...

I don't really agree mina .
It's all about motivation.
If all of a sudden kiki wakes up 5 6 members of his team and whips up the game like crazy I can assure you that in 4 5 seasons they'll be in d1 and maybe even up there.
You can see it with cp and lr, they have a huge number of people who are highly motivated and invested in everything, and that makes all the difference.

4/5 members, you'll last 1/2 season and you'll be yo-yoing.
It's enough for some of them to leave for training and that's the end of it.
And I'm not talking about those who arrive en masse or leave after having had what they're looking for.
I'm talking of course about an agreement that becomes stable.
The agreement cited has very large members, experience, knowledge and are able to help.
Whether you are LR, CP keep pace and very simple.
They have a solid group and inevitably each season people apply.
Tomorrow you want to play for the title, where do you apply? Obviously in LR or CP so recruitment is simple and especially minimal.
For me succeeding now is more complicated

minadinho: 4/5 membres tu va tenir 1/2 saison et tu feras le yoyo .
Suffit que certain partent en formation l’histoire est réglé .
Et je parle pas des arrivé en masse ou ça repart après avoir eu ce qui rechercher .
Après Je parle bien sûr d’une entente qui deviens stable .
La l’entente cité a de très gros membres , expérience , connaissance et sont en capacité de pouvoir aider .
Que tu soit LR , CP tenir la cadence et très simple .
Ils ont leur groupe solide et forcément chaque saison des gens qui post...

You know it can come down to very little sometimes you take away a sky, Estac and Gauthier for example I'm not so sure that LR are at the top (that's just one example among many).

You will always recruit 1/3 good players per season.
It's compulsory because every season new members want to play for the title.
So yes if you lose 3 big clubs you will be penalised but you will remain competitive.

then you also have to remember that vf members almost all sign for the biggest cartels, and as soon as someone performs, a big cartel comes straight for them, so I also understand kiki.

We should set up a system with a kind of contract, you sign in an agreement you must stay X season, if a manager wants to leave in another agreement, well the agreement where he goes must pay compensation.

Basically, do what you do with trainers in the real world.

minadinho: 4/5 membres tu va tenir 1/2 saison et tu feras le yoyo .
Suffit que certain partent en formation l’histoire est réglé .
Et je parle pas des arrivé en masse ou ça repart après avoir eu ce qui rechercher .
Après Je parle bien sûr d’une entente qui deviens stable .
La l’entente cité a de très gros membres , expérience , connaissance et sont en capacité de pouvoir aider .
Que tu soit LR , CP tenir la cadence et très simple .
Ils ont leur groupe solide et forcément chaque saison des gens qui post...

Obviously it's more complicated, we're not saying it isn't, let's just say I'm not. It's normal to take away how much 50? 70? 90% of assets compared with 10 years ago.
Agreement levels rise and fall. Sometimes it doesn't take much.

What I don't find normal is wanting to weaken others in order to have a chance. Everyone has a different perception of things. But for me, the goal is to set up a project, whether it's from scratch, through a merger, etc., and become better than the others, full stop.

There's something wrong with D1, where the ratios are 2.60 and 0.60. That's what I'm saying. Reducing the gaps between the agreements would be a plus.

I can understand Kiki's desire to one day take her agreement up to D1. Progress is slower, but it's there. But I still think that D1 needs to reduce the number of agreements simply because we've reduced the number of active players and the gap is too wide. These bottom-of-the-ranking agreements stop the IE at 60 or 70, fall on ultras and take 5-0, they do it 1x before clicking on the button a 2nd time to launch an IE. It's normal to have different opinions on lots of different subjects.

Don't worry A45 has other things to do 😅

I've got the solution lol
We ask aymeric to create AI teams via the store lol

kiki-sainté: Si je peux me permettre les championnats d entente a huit pour éviter que des petites ententes arrivent en d1 ? C est ça votre projet ?
Désolé du terme d avance mais des gens se casse le cul a essayer de monter en d1 avec peu d armes car les gros clubs refusent de se joindre a vous en précisant bien au passage que jamais on arrivera en d1 des ententes avec les membres actuels
Le championnat d entente a 16 est très bien .moins ça serait tuer les petites ententes car on aurait toujours les mê...

Quite frankly, what's the point of an "average" club (I'm not trying to be pejorative) playing in D1 when 2/3 of its members aren't going to play any IE matches for fear of facing the big guns?

You're probably having more fun playing for a lower-division title than being in D1 just to say I'm in D1.

If 8 per division is scary, 12 would be the minimum.

Uzzego27: Je te souhaite de trouver les membres qui voudront rejoindre ton projet mais comme dit dans un précédent sujet c’est devenu dur de recruter pour les petites ententes et même pour les ententes installées en D1 depuis plusieurs saisons

The problem with recruiting small and medium-sized cartels is that anyone who wants to win a cartel title and already has several cartel titles in their trophy cabinet always wants to join the same cartel.
I ask myself: where does the challenge lie?

For someone who has never won the cartel title, yes, that's understandable, but for someone who has already won 1 or even more titles, there's less of a challenge.

Kirikou: Le problème de recrutement des petites et moyennes entente, que tous ceux qu'ils veulent aller chercher le titre des ententes et qu'ils ont déjà plusieurs titres d'entente dans leur palmarès, souhaitent toujours rejoindre les mêmes, c'est un peu l'instant de faciliter
Je me pose la question : Où se trouve le challenge ?

Pour quelqu'un qui n'a jamais gagné le titre des ententes, oui ça on peut comprendre mais pour quelqu'un qu'à déjà 1 et même plusieurs titres rejoint moins de challenge, Pers...

That's why there needs to be a reform of the league table.
If division 1 has a maximum of 8-10 agreements, we'll only see "big" matches. Even so, we regularly see IE matches with AFKs. It's pretty frustrating when some have to play 10 complicated games and others play 4 AFKs out of 5.
If we reduced the number of agreements in d1, we'd have a much tighter ranking than at present.

aymeric should put the spalmares back on all the divisions and not just division 1, perhaps that would motivate all the so-called smaller agreements.

Why always want to drag VF down?
I easily understand that the league table has been dominated for several seasons by 2-3 teams, but before wanting to destroy everything, it's a good idea to ask ourselves a few questions:

1. "It's easy to recruit for the big clubs". Do you know how much energy we have to put into recruiting someone? Do you know the number of recruits we have per season versus the number of stoppages/breaks etc? If it were that easy, we'd have 3 4 5 agreements full of assets. Look at our agreements 2 and look at the active and motivated clubs.
2. "Why don't the managers join us? Try to create a real entente identity. People who apply must do so for something, for a feeling of belonging and not just "we want to play for the title or we want to go up to D1" (bravo d'ailleur donpanini with the 7th company which is a film that always succeeds something in many people).
3. "We need to do away with sister agreements". Why can't a manager who wants to play quietly be part of a big club in order to benefit from the atmosphere, the dynamics, or to be able to play with his mates?
4. "It's hard to get up there because of the sister agreements".
   That doesn't change anything, the sister associations are stuck in D2. If there were 10 in D2, the 11th, 12th and 13th would go up. On the contrary, it's a fabulous test for D1. The clubs that manage to finish 1st or 2nd in D2 generally manage to stay up.
   What's more, do you know how many years it's taken for the big clubs to become what they are? (CP, for example, was created in 2006 and won its first title in season 127, 16 years later).
5. "Big associations will remain big associations" - how many associations that have won the title have managed to stay at the highest level? Very few.

If we draw an analogy with life IRL. With Paris now dominating everything, do we have to put obstacles in their way so that Nantes can stay up? Or do we need Nantes to get off their arses and find an investor, train youngsters, put their faith in them and get the club back up? (Sorry, I've taken Nantes at random).

In short, all that to say that we shouldn't always blame others.
Adjustments need to be made (sister league, limiting to a maximum of 2 agreements, putting titles back in each division), ok, but don't always be pessimistic, anything is possible, roll up your sleeves.

We can turn the problem on its head:

• There are 800 clubs playing IE. Not enough to fill more than 3 divisions.
• There are 192 agreements, 128 of which are in Division 5.
  Rather than cutting off the top of the ranking, why not cut off the tail? 🫤

Misha: On peut retourner le problème:

• il y a 800 clubs qui jouent des IE. Pas de quoi remplir plus que 3 divisions.
• il y a 192 ententes dont 128 en division 5.
  Plutôt que d’aller couper la tête du classement, pourquoi ne pas couper la queue ? 🫤

We'll never cut off your tail, Misha... it's your main tool.

The motivation I have the energy too but when you recruit a member 2 leave in the big agreements or in new projects with only former members of d1 already well built to survive in d1 agreements.
Even if we go up to d1 this season we won't have too many recruits in my opinion as we're fighting with our weapons and we're progressing every season in 14 seasons we've gone from d4 to d2 and if we stay up if we go up for me that would already be5 a great achievement but we'll have an answer at the end of the season.

It's utopian to believe that abolishing the 2 agreements will make it easier for the new agreements to recruit motivated, active, high-performing members to help them progress and play in D1.

• First of all, the entente 1s are not full, so the members of the 2s will be able to stay in their entente by joining the 1s.
• Secondly, the members of the 2s who would not fit in with the 50 clubs in agreement 1 would certainly not be those who are the most active and/or motivated by competition, so there is little chance of them joining another "ambitious" project to help it grow.
• What's more, there are enough recognised agreements that members who wish to join a viable ambitious project will do so for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a new entity that doesn't stand out any more than the others.
• Finally, members still on the sidelines will often prefer to follow their network (former members of the same agreement, for example) or remain without an agreement rather than join people they don't know, whatever the project they are working on.

Blagoje Vidinic: C'est utopique de croire que la suppression des ententes 2 permettra aux nouvelles ententes de recruter plus facilement des membres motivés, actifs et performants pour les faire progresser et les amener à jouer en D1.

• Déjà, les ententes 1 ne sont pas pleines donc les membres des 2 pourront rester dans leur entente en rejoignant les 1.
• Ensuite, les membres des 2 qui n'auraient pas leur place parmi les 50 clubs de l'entente 1 ne seront certainement pas ceux qui sont les plus actifs et/ou m...

In that case, why not reduce the number of members per agreement to 20/25?