Talk Fantasy Football

If people want to engage they should engage. Using a simpler than desirable method of voting just to get in more casual votes seems like putting the cart before the horses. I'm delighted that anyone who cares about Team England should be able to get involved in the debate and decisions. But it seems madness to cater to those who don't care enough to read a simple plan (whatever it may be).

Still happy to be involved as returning officer, and want Team England to be run well so that future generations can benefit!

For the voters, Wulfyn's suggestion seems to be "put the candidates in order from favourite to least", which I think is understandable to everyone, and I'm confident that I can implement it in a transparent way, so seems sensible to me.

Can someone post an idiot-proof summary of whatever gets decided?

This last couple of pages to'ing and fro'ing has completely lost me on this one, again, I'm afraid.

Not being recalcitrant, genuinely can't keep up.

Imagine if TE lose the first World Cup after the creation of this committee though, scenes!

To be fair this is what I'm talking about

Agreed if it's going to get more complex then it needs to be expressed really concisely and clearly.

sann0638 wrote:Still happy to be involved as returning officer, and want Team England to be run well so that future generations can benefit!

For the voters, Wulfyn's suggestion seems to be "put the candidates in order from favourite to least", which I think is understandable to everyone, and I'm confident that I can implement it in a transparent way, so seems sensible to me.

Great, cheers Mike.

Anyone who has the word recalcitrant in their vocabulary I'm sure can follow the voting system suggested

As I followed it:
- 2 votes each suggested by SB, straight count.
- Deefer suggester 4 votes with preference
- Deefer suggested 4 votes without preference
- Wulfyn suggested alternative preference method.

I don't think "put the candidates in order" is too complicated, seems straightforward enough to me.

I think what Wulfyn has suggested in the above post is what I was trying to achieve and is better expressed than I managed, so I'd wholeheartedly support that.

The watered down alternative was an attempt on my part to ensure this wasn't a deal breaker, but then with the time we have available to get this right (a fact I hadn't appreciated) I'd be very happy for us to wait until Christmas if that is what it takes to get the system right.

I'd also strongly support the notion that candidates get a vote, as in normal election processes.

I'm not 100% sure how this can be resolved though... ?

Very busy work day for me but I will post more later. For the moment, just a couple of quick points:

1. Don't worry Dan (Deeferdan), I'm sure there is a way through this, after all from what I've seen we are all just trying to push this towards what we think is best for Team England as a community, it is understandable there are different opinions.

2. Just to clarify (Wulfyn and Mubo), there was never any intention for me to stand for election and be the returning officer. You can clearly see from earlier posts that Mike had agreed to be our official vote counter before I put my name into the hat for election. However, to avoid any suggestion of bias in the way I've tried to drive this process it might be best if I withdraw from the election. I'll ponder that some more this evening.

I think you should stand Jim. Anyone who knows you knows that you would want nothing but the best outcome for the system. So let democracy decide - the community will vote if they support you, or won’t if they don’t!

100% agreed. Your impartially not in question. Sann's role fixes any potential perceived issue.

Absolutely no reason for you to withdraw Jim.

Joemanji wrote:Absolutely no reason for you to withdraw Jim.

Agreed! Hope you'll stand.

Absolutely. +1 to the voices above.

Ok, enough, enough, I won't withdraw!

So where to now? Whilst I take the point that we don't have to decide anything quickly, I believe there is a case for having the committee in place before the EuroBowl/EurOpen in October and there is also something to be said for maintaining momentum and holding the election soon whilst the community remains engaged with the process.

Although a simple voting system would work just fine imo, I'm happy to support Wulfyn's system and it certainly has benefits. One thing that concerns me is that we've moved from a system that had some support, to another system that has some support. Hard to say how much support and we could "decide" to adopt it only to then have someone else question how much community support there is for it and challenge it again. That is the nature of these threads I guess.

How about we use the rest of this week to give people more time to comment on the proposed system, aiming for a decision by the end of the weekend (Sunday the 9th of September, say 10pm). Given the views expressed here over the last couple of days, Wulfyn's system is the preferred system at this stage. If you don't like it then please post your view on here this week. Messages confirming support for this system are also very welcome.

Assuming there appears to be a reasonable consensus on system by Sunday, I'll then open up the voting for a 2 week period, so voting would close on Sunday the 23rd of September.

Wulfyn, given the additional complexity in counting the votes, can we take you up on your offer of support on this. i.e. will you be a returning officer alongside Mike so that at the end of the process we have a count that you both endorse as correct?

The big positive from all of this is that the end point is a committee who can make decisions in a much clearer way. So the "which system has the most support?" debate will be easier to make sense of.

I have no objections to Wulfyn’s system other than it seems sensible that only people without a stake in the process should be involved in counting / returning a result. Obviously Wulfyn should be allowed to cast a vote as an English player, so the position is necessarily compromised. Sann to find another non-English non-voting person to check the result?

Disagree with the “OK if it lasts until Christmas” way of thinking. The voting process has been set up with a particular timescale, voters and committee candidates asked to take part on that basis. Another long period of discussion and decision vacuum will be a momentum drain and risks boring the pants of people, frankly. I am behind Jim’s suggestion to postpone for a few days then press on as per the initial voting structure set out.