Looks like we do what we want....

[birch-chorley]

I think it’s a case of burying heads in the sand if we think we have no case to answer for missing two games, it’s unprecedented levels of tin pot 

I don’t know the rules but I’m sure that it’s our responsibility to make sure that we have a senior playing squad available to play a game. If we haven’t done so due to industrial action then that’s on us, not the EFL. We were receiving millions of pounds in EFL money in order to organise a senior squad 

Its a deduction for both games surely, only saving grace I can see is one of the deductions should be last season, the other this 

Edited November 14, 2019 by birch-chorley

[Marc505]

52 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Something a bit shitty in the offing and he's suddenly on the case again. 

So bloody true.

[enzo gambaro]

5 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It is what it is?

Oh fuck!

Aye, stop reading when you get tired.

[birch-chorley]

Just trying to refresh myself with the details of the Brentford game, according to the BBC link the re arranged Tuesday game was pulled as we couldn’t get a safety certificate, that would again be our responsibility surely? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48151016

"Following the decision taken by Bolton Wanderers' Safety Advisory Group (SAG) to issue a prohibition notice preventing Tuesday's rearranged fixture with Brentford from taking place, the EFL will not be asking that the game is played at a future date," an English Football League statement said.

"There is no provision under EFL regulations to direct clubs to play at a later date than four days past the conclusion of the season and, as a result, it has been determined that Brentford will be awarded the three points on the basis of a 1-0 victory.

"As a consequence, Bolton Wanderers is now deemed to be guilty of misconduct by the EFL which will result in disciplinary proceedings against the club being taken at an appropriate time."

[Tonge moor green jacket]

13 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Or they take the line that the brentford situation was avoidable

It's not like a waterlogged pitch which can't be helped. Pay the players then they dont strike and the game goes ahead. 

Making sure that they got paid is solely the club's responsibility. They are not going to punish the players individually for striking so blame the club instead 

Obviously that's true, however such was the autocratic nature of the CUNT that it became out of the club's employees' hands; he stopped paying every bugger in the end.

It's to that end that I believe the efl must take greater responsibility in future, to ensure that a proper functioning board exists within its clubs so they can't become a play thing for a cunt.

[birch-chorley]

The EFL didn’t have much (If any)choice three years before 

Its not like we had other buyers queuing up to take us on 

It certainly won’t get us out of punishment now anyway 

[Casino]

4 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

The EFL didn’t have much (If any)choice three years before 

 

This really shouldnt need repeating

[DirtySanchez]

33 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Obviously that's true, however such was the autocratic nature of the CUNT that it became out of the club's employees' hands; he stopped paying every bugger in the end.

It's to that end that I believe the efl must take greater responsibility in future, to ensure that a proper functioning board exists within its clubs so they can't become a play thing for a cunt.

Isn't it the club's responsibility to pay the players rather than an individual. We told the EFL we had the cash to see out the season. 

I think we are naive if we think we can pin it all on Ken and as he's not here then they go easy on us now 

[tkonion]

10 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Isn't it the club's responsibility to pay the players rather than an individual. We told the EFL we had the cash to see out the season. 

I think we are naive if we think we can pin it all on Ken and as he's not here then they go easy on us now 

I fear you are correct that they will punish the club. It really is time that they started to look into finding a way to punish the owners of clubs at the time that issues like this occurred rather than punish those who bear  no responsibility for previous fuck ups.

[birch-chorley]

Not sure how that can work legally with clubs being limited liability companies 

Besides unintended consequences could well mean that clubs fold left right and centre as owners are put off by the potential liability for failure, which is generally the most common outcome 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

Not sure how that can work legally with clubs being limited liability companies 

Besides unintended consequences could well mean that clubs fold left right and centre as owners are put off by the potential liability for failure, which is generally the most common outcome 

I think what we're getting at is the efl having sufficient balls to have genuinely effective ownership rules.

In our case, we apparently told them we had money for the season.

That instruction would have come from Ken ultimately, whether it was true or not, we didn't pay up.

That's where it falls down, the limited nature does provide protection to owners, but it also doesn't help the club when the likes of Ken get a hold on one.

Perhaps new owners should have to pay a bond up front, which is held by the efl. This at least shows some level of ability (and willingness) to fund a club.

Also toughen up. If you've got a record as Ken had, then you can't buy a club. As things stand, what's stopping him buying someone else?

Edited November 15, 2019 by Tonge moor green jacket

[Traf]

11 hours ago, DirtySanchez said:

Or they take the line that the brentford situation was avoidable

It's not like a waterlogged pitch which can't be helped. Pay the players then they dont strike and the game goes ahead. 

Making sure that they got paid is solely the club's responsibility. They are not going to punish the players individually for striking so blame the club instead 

Yes, of course, the club are culpable, but there's at least some grounds for putting up a fight about it.

[DirtySanchez]

3 hours ago, Traf said:

Yes, of course, the club are culpable, but there's at least some grounds for putting up a fight about it.

There is but this is the EFL we are talking about who have been totally clueless since the brentford game about how to deal with it

Their stock is pretty much shot given how they have handled us and Bury and got criticised by other clubs for it.

I think they will punish us rather than accept your argument to save face and avoid the shitstorm from other clubs if they let us off with a slap on the wrists, which would be pretty much admitting they fucked up

[Morizio]

No news yet🤷‍♂️

 

Guess it going to be the Friday evening 17:01 release...

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 hours ago, DirtySanchez said:

There is but this is the EFL we are talking about who have been totally clueless since the brentford game about how to deal with it

Their stock is pretty much shot given how they have handled us and Bury and got criticised by other clubs for it.

I think they will punish us rather than accept your argument to save face and avoid the shitstorm from other clubs if they let us off with a slap on the wrists, which would be pretty much admitting they fucked up

If it is truly independent, then the group could recognise efl failings and rules and be lenient.

[Matt Lofthouse]

21 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Something a bit shitty in the offing and he's suddenly on the case again. 

In one. 

[Zico]

21 hours ago, DirtySanchez said:

Or they take the line that the brentford situation was avoidable

It's not like a waterlogged pitch which can't be helped. Pay the players then they dont strike and the game goes ahead. 

Making sure that they got paid is solely the club's responsibility. They are not going to punish the players individually for striking so blame the club instead 

Yeah but if there's no money, there's no money

[burnden]

@MarcIles

I understand the EFL verdict might stretch as far as Wednesday, now.

[MalcolmW]

9 minutes ago, burnden said:

@MarcIles

I understand the EFL verdict might stretch as far as Wednesday, now.

6 Wednesdays left this year, the last being Christmas,

[Tonge moor green jacket]

It does tend to suggest it's not easy for them, hopefully that's a good sign.

[Burndens Bogs]

Fuckin 'ell, the EFL are dragging this one out.

I can't make my mind up if they're going to make an example of us and kill us with a  -12 points.

Or if they're playing for time to just give us a slap on the wrist and hope no one notices.

[bwfc2003]

13 minutes ago, Burndens Bogs said:

Fuckin 'ell, the EFL are dragging this one out.

I can't make my mind up if they're going to make an example of us and kill us with a  -12 points.

Or if they're playing for time to just give us a slap on the wrist and hope no one notices.

Its nearly SEVEN months since the first postponement

[Roger_Dubuis]

I am expecting 6 points.

If a small club like Bury had cancelled 2 matches i'd expect 10 or 12 points, If it was Liverpool i'd expect  Doncaster and Brentford to be found the guilty parties

[Take Hunt Off]

1 hour ago, Roger_Dubuis said:

I am expecting 6 points.

If a small club like Bury had cancelled 2 matches i'd expect 10 or 12 points, If it was Liverpool i'd expect  Doncaster and Brentford to be found the guilty parties

Why exclude  the haemorroids from your thesis ?

[FrancisFogarty]

7 hours ago, Burndens Bogs said:

Fuckin 'ell, the EFL are dragging this one out.

I can't make my mind up if they're going to make an example of us and kill us with a  -12 points.

Or if they're playing for time to just give us a slap on the wrist and hope no one notices.

Giving us minus 12 wouldn't kill us, they tried that before and it didn't work. All it would do is end the 'can we, can't we' stop up question.

So long as we (to quote your pic) keep the faith, we live to fight another day. Again.