Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Extra 6 Point Deduction


Breightmet Boy

Recommended Posts

  • Site Supporter
2 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Have a very strong case to push back on two deductions this season 

Ones fair enough mind and -6 points for missing a game feels about right I suppose 

I don't think the club/administrators did the postponement in the right way; should have discussed it with the efl first. So accept something with regard to that.

However, at the time, there were expressions of potential conflict with the fa regulations; if that's true then is it right that the efl seek a punishment for a club protecting its young players.

Maybe this is why it's taking so long, as it's not so simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MickyD said:

What's the crack with the Doncaster game? As the postponement was in order that the club followed the EFL's own child protection policy, how can the club be responsible?

No defence that 

We should have had enough senior players to fulfil the fixture

Or just play the ‘kids’ again 

I say kids loosely, even though half the tea we’re adults (19 or above) 

I see a 16 your old scored for Rochdale last night at Old Trafford, wonder if he’s allowed to play on Saturday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, birch-chorley said:

No defence that 

We should have had enough senior players to fulfil the fixture

Or just play the ‘kids’ again 

I say kids loosely, even though half the tea we’re adults (19 or above) 

I see a 16 your old scored for Rochdale last night at Old Trafford, wonder if he’s allowed to play on Saturday 

I think it is a defence, or a defence of sorts. The EFL have no welfare policy regarding young players (that I'm aware of), the regulations concerning the protection and welfare of young players fall within the FA's jurisdiction. We practically found ourselves in a position whereby we had to comply with, or pay due regard to, two conflicting sets of regulations. The EFL insisted the match must be played but the FA's welfare policies require clubs to manage young players' minutes responsibly. It could plausibly be argued that expecting 17 and 18-yesr-olds to play a fourth match in fourteen days (or whatever it was), especially when it would likely have been a fourth ninety minutes, was irresponsible.

The counter argument might be that we should've played the 17 and 18-year-olds who hadn't played three ninety minute matches in such a short timeframe, but then I don't know if we'd have had enough to rotate or if it would even have been sensible for them to have played.

I doubt it'd succeed if we appealed on that basis, but it's a pretty decent argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I think it is a defence, or a defence of sorts. The EFL have no welfare policy regarding young players (that I'm aware of), the regulations concerning the protection and welfare of young players fall within the FA's jurisdiction. We practically found ourselves in a position whereby we had to comply with, or pay due regard to, two conflicting sets of regulations. The EFL insisted the match must be played but the FA's welfare policies require clubs to manage young players' minutes responsibly. It could plausibly be argued that expecting 17 and 18-yesr-olds to play a fourth match in fourteen days (or whatever it was), especially when it would likely have been a fourth ninety minutes, was irresponsible.

The counter argument might be that we should've played the 17 and 18-year-olds who hadn't played three ninety minute matches in such a short timeframe, but then I don't know if we'd have had enough to rotate or if it would even have been sensible for them to have played.

I doubt it'd succeed if we appealed on that basis, but it's a pretty decent argument.

The EFL can pick from....

Should have had a senior squad 

Should have rotated the 5 kids who played for 5 kids who sat on the bench the previous Saturday 

Should have signed some players who would have played for 2 and 6 per game (no matter what level they came from) 

the only defence we have is that we only missed one game this season and should only get one lot of points deducted this season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Doncaster we asked the EFL to postpone it. They said no. So we then said we wouldn’t play. Not really sure that we didn’t consult them. Was anyone not expecting this? We were always going to be hammered. We might have avoided it if it was just brentford. They might have given us a suspended deduction. But now we will lose quite a few points. Best to get it done with and focus on winning some games. In terms of achieving anything this season is a write off and probably is even without further points deduction to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

The EFL can pick from....

Should have had a senior squad 

Should have rotated the 5 kids who played for 5 kids who sat on the bench the previous Saturday 

Should have signed some players who would have played for 2 and 6 per game (no matter what level they came from) 

the only defence we have is that we only missed one game this season and should only get one lot of points deducted this season 

They allowed us to start the season despite only have a handful of contracted senior players.

Even if we had rotated players we'd still have had to name the ones who'd played previously on the bench, potentially exposing them to further minutes.

We had signed Jack Honbs but the EFL reportedly wouldn't allow him to play. Also, we weren't able to pay the very few number of contracted players we had, never mind able to pay the contracts offered to new signings.

But anyway, I expect we're not going to appeal, for political reasons if nothing else, so we'll just have to get on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.