Further Bolton sanctions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50420657
Not sure how I feel about this. Not playing fixtures should get a bigger penalty in my opinion but is cutting Bolton a break the best thing to do?
I wonder if another club will now decide to postpone a fixture for 'player welfare'?
0
Comments
Wrong decision. Should be 3 points docked per game. And what does a suspended penalty do? If Bolton stay up by 2 points, the team that finishes below them will have every right to kick off. Also, are they going to play the Doncaster game?
I see the Football League (I refuse to use this EFL branding nonsense) are appealing this verdict based on competition integrity. Bolton are not happy about it but in all honesty they must know they have so far dodged a massive bullet.
It would be a brave move but I would love to see another club postpone a game based on player welfare. Fixture congestion and a small squad would be enough of an excuse based on this verdict?
What I don't understand is why an independent disciplinary commission and not the EFL dished out the punishment.
It's certainly a dangerous precdent to set. Yes, they've had a nightmare etc etc, but the fact remained they sacked off a game giving themselves a better chance of getting a result later on.
Whoever they were playing must be fuming, having seen loads of others in effect get a walkover.
EFL have appealed:
https://www.efl.com/news/2019/november/efl-to-appeal-disciplinary-commission-decision/?fbclid=IwAR03fLAsIFZVxVtIMRLCpSSMqin_3OqTN8IsOYJULaEcIR6nht4UWnaFKM4#.Xde6z2otn_I.facebook
Surely it should be the EFL making the decision!
Oh, Doncaster fans are not happy. The whole thing has been a shambles really. Arguably they shouldn't have been allowed to start the season.
A strong argument IMO. The EFL bent their own rules and allowed Bolton to start the season on a promise of something that might happen but had not happened yet and was not certain to happen. Bury were not afforded that leniency over proof of funding but, had they been, could potentially still be carrying on now without having called matches off in the manner that Bolton did.
There can't be any doubt that those teams who played Bolton in the first few weeks did ok in the scheme of things.
We certainly got them on an ideal day, and can probably be quite disappointed we only won 2-0, as I think Pattison alone should have had a hatrick in that "Alamo" last 15mins.
The EFL must have felt they had been taken for idiots when Bolton's guarantees that their sale was effectively signed, sealed and delivered before the season started proved to be a load of rubbish, followed by a few weeks more of non-payment of staff and calling matches off. I am not, therefore, at all surprised that the EFL have appealed the punishment as being too lenient.
It certainly was a triumph in positive PR by Bolton and I am glad they were allowed the time. Bury could have got the same.
At the very least though Bolton should get the same punishment as any other team postponing a match at short notice for dubious reasons.
Any team that played them before the takeover and finishes three points ahead of 3rd, 7th or 21st will have their promotion/play-off finish/survival tainted, for want of a better word. Obviously those clubs - of which we're one - weren't going to turn around to the EFL and say "Nah" to playing the fixture, but others will see us to have benefited. I won't be complaining if we ultimately benefit, but it would be nice to finish with more of a cushion if it comes to that.
Seems to me the EFL doesn’t really have any rules. Or at least if they do they don’t stick to them and bend them repeatedly.
Perhaps there’s merit to it, no one wants to see clubs go to the wall and flexibility is good.
But if you’re not going to enforce punishments, continually extend deadlines and generally be inconsistent, what’s the point?
Also truly bizarre that an independent committee decides point deduction penalties...
You really think anyone is going to hark back to a single game in a 44 match season? When a good 6 teams played them before they were sorted? It's one of those breaks you can get in football, like playing a team with tonnes of injuries and suspensions, or playing a team like Rochdale a few days after they've had an epic night at Man Utd
Coventry must be gutted, drawing 0-0 right in their main issues time! And of course like you say Doncaster have every right to be annoyed.
Peterborough's owner will probably kick off if it comes to that, going by his recent comments - not that I have a lot of sympathy for them with the budget they've got.
And what? I honestly couldn't care less, it's nothing to do with us, we had a scheduled game, we played it and won, end of story.
Wouldn't taint a thing
Yep, it's not like Bury's promotion where they were playing with money they didn't have.
While you might argue about EFL actions prior, I cant honestly say I disagree with anything they have done in respect of Bury and Bolton since July in a very difficult situation.
I would hope that the FA admits a phoenix Bury at a sensible level next season though - conference north maybe.
You think the punishment for not fulfilling two games is fair?
The EFL don't.
Dev likes to take the opposite view. Bwk
It is strange that the usually ‘by the book’ emotionless dev is so happy to take the lenient view here.
If everyone else and the EFL had said it was the right punishment, he'd be saying it wasn't.
I thought they got the balance between giving both clubs every chance to survive and compromising the integrity of the competition a bit but not fatally just about right.
I wouldn't have given Bury's latest last minute white knight more time on the final day in view of the previous broken promises and time elapsed. Bolton were absolutely at 1 minute to midnight too - probably necessary to get that one over the line.
Would you really have done anything differently from say June 19 onwards?
Re the independent panel, given that Bolton had already been deducted 12 pts and 6 (?) games for their financial crisis, any further punishment perhaps excessive. I can understand why the EFL has appealed but perhaps they have been punished enough.
So are you arguing that because they have suffered enough postponing two games at short notice should not get the same penalty as if a more financially stable club had done?
Previous punishments were for financial problems. They have effectively got away with postponing these two games.
finely balanced one for me, Mr Middle. I can see arguments on both sides. I come down on side of "they have been punished enough" but only marginally. Perhaps they can be punished with points deduction (to maintain principle) but as with some criminal matters - penalty runs concurrently rather than consecutively.
What the hell has punishment on criminal matters anything to do with this Dev?
In that first game of the season they had only two players under 20 and plenty of quality, including a player who left and is playing in the Championship.
Not sure we can be classed as having played there youth team by any stretch. Average age of Bolton’s team that day was 23.8. Coventry have played five times this season with a younger 1st team and they are 3rd in the table
Ok. I'll bite on this theory. If Bolton's team wasn't considered to be mainly a youth team how did they get away with postponing the Bolton game?
Havinv looked back at the scores in the games that side played I am assuming you are trolling