@DevC said:
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.
Wow. That post took a turn at the end. What are you thinking happened at Bolton? Was Prince Andrew involved?
Personally I don't see how you can be let off one rule break because you've already broken others. The world would be made if we all had free crimes to commit and a tot up basis. Bit like a naughty Nectar card maybe.
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
From memory I think the game we played against them was before the final exodus of some of their remaining championship players and I think they had about 5 senior players on their books? It was after our game when the deal that had been promised fell through that most others left and they were more or less totally reliant on their your team.
So yes, we did get a big of a free hit, but not quite as easy a one as the teams that followed in the next few weeks
GK Mathews - Played every league game
RB Brockbank - Currently injured but highly rated and played a few Champ games last season
CB Edwards - Not involved since takeover
CB Zouma - Their first choice CB at the moment
LB Earl - Bit deceptive since he went off injured after 15 mins but recently back starting and has played 30 games in Champ last couple of seasons
DM Murphy - Senior player still regularly playing
DM Lowe - Senior player still regularly playing
AM Weir - Mostly an unsued sub last couple of months
CM Oztumer - Sold to Charlton in Championship
AM Politic - Mostly come on as a second half substitute recently
CF Brown - Not involved since takeover
So after their starting XI only 3 Edwards, Weir and Brown are not regularly playing in a team who've won their last 3 games. Their team that day wasn't as weak as some people are making out.
Their game with Doncaster which they pulled out of at a day's notice - scheduled for August - still hasn't been rearranged. So basically, if you don't fancy a game, go ahead and pull out? Great precedent...
@chairboyscentral Your summary conclusion isn't entirely accurate though, is it? You've missed out the bit in the verdict about Bolton's mitigating circumstances at the time being part of the consideration. So it would only be a 'precedent' if a future situation had the same or similar circumstances surrounding it.
I get what you're saying, but they really should have come down hard to send out a message to other clubs. To be honest, I don't think Bolton should have been allowed to start the season.
While the world of football forums (and forums in general come to that) loves a conspiracy theory, I am not sure its justified in this case.
Bolton ran into severe financial difficulty , entered administration and were docked 12 points. As part of that financial difficulty and administration they failed to fulfil fixtures (two). They by the skin of their teeth found a buyer to get them out of this trouble and now appear relatively stable again.
Bury ran into severe financial difficulty. They failed to find a buyer to get them out of it (although at the very last minute a mystery buyer claimed to have been found - again)
Macclesfield ran into severe financial difficulty but have yet to go into administration. They missed two fixtures and have so far been docked six points (possibly likely to increase to ten).
While the EFL appealed against the independent commission in respect of Bolton's points deduction, I am minded to agree with the commission that any further penalty would be effectively penalising Bolton for their financial issues twice. Similarly if Macclesfield do require administration, I would hope that their punishment is capped at a total 12 points including the existing penalties.
I see the EFL statement refers to the fact that they intend tio introduce a fixed term penalty for missing games into the rules. This situation hadn't happened before but that seems a sensible move,.
Club in turmoil that barely exists and has little or no senior players struggles to fulfill three games in a week, manages to sort themselves out, gets big points deduction anyway for going into admin, survives, game eventually gets rescheduled. No harm done.
Really wonder about people asking for them to get hammered. Could be us easily. Agree with @LeedsBlue these are special circumstances. Trying to keep the 91 together should overtake petty arguments they somehow got it easy.
Doncaster will now have to play a stronger Bolton team when they should have benefitted from playing them at the beginning of the season like we did - although that in itself feels a ludicrous thing to say. They also have to play a midweek away game late in the season, when the original fixture was postponed entirely because of their opponents - not really fair. One thing's for sure: the integrity of League One has been badly damaged this season.
No-one is I suspect questioning that Bolton Bury and now Macclesfield is far from ideal and has had an impact on both the bottom divisions.
surely better though if possible not to kill off clubs if it can possibly be avoided even if there is some damage to the competition. Has to be a limit though. To me got the right balance with Bolton and Bury. Macc hasn't finished yet.
Just comparing this Bolton thing to Ipswich cancelling matches due to international call ups for players rarely in their first team. The only conclusion I can come to is some clubs can do what they like and others can't.
In recent years we've had match day squads decimated by injury and suspension and with no youth to call on have been at the limit to fulfil the fixture. I wonder about the welfare of those players, especially those who played through injuries. Maybe we should have played the player welfare card and my fear with this ruling is that a club will, safe they will not get a penalty.
Or is it as simple as playing on yellow card? You can get away with more with a part penalty against you.
Which is why Bolton and Macclesfield have been punished and that the EFL now intends to put in place fixed penalties to address a new problem not foreseen previously.
Bolton didn't cancel because their senior players didn't get paid, they had already mostly cleared off and left the kids to it by then. If they didn't have a youth team they'd probably have been wound up.
I have no idea if their youth team are up to three games in a week.
Arguably the integrity of the league was damaged by letting us thrash their kids when it was fairly obvious they'd be more of a test for others later, though if they let Oyston, the guy at Charlton and 2 lots of Bury cons carry on as they please we shouldn't be too surprised.
The independent commission appeared to see the two unfilled fixtures and the administration as all one issue and therefore the punishment applied related to both manifestations of the same issue, @Chairboyscentral. Have to say I agree with them.
I also agree that it would make sense to include a specific penalty for such instances in the rules going forward.
There wasn't any need to punish Bolton though, they should simply have awarded the 3 points to the opposition teams for the matches that Bolton didn't fulfil.
That way, IMHO, everyone would have been treated fairly.
Depends if the match is eventually played or not. I'd say each unfulfilled fixture should = 3 points deducted. That way, even if they win the re-arranged game, they don't really gain anything from it.
If it doesn't get played, that's when it could get messy. They're lucky their game v Brentford last season - which didn't end up getting played - had no implications for either side.
@Twizz said:
There wasn't any need to punish Bolton though, they should simply have awarded the 3 points to the opposition teams for the matches that Bolton didn't fulfil.
That way, IMHO, everyone would have been treated fairly.
...and skint teams miss out on revenue, fans miss out on games, and everyone else moans they had to play but these teams got byes, life's unfair.
@Twizz said:
There wasn't any need to punish Bolton though, they should simply have awarded the 3 points to the opposition teams for the matches that Bolton didn't fulfil.
That way, IMHO, everyone would have been treated fairly.
Although Doncaster would have lost out on a fairly sizeable chunk of money from the loss of a game against a (nominally) well supported club.
I think if they were to have received the 3 points and financial compensation (from a pot that probably needs to be created), then it would have been fair.
The whole thing is an absolute mess, and it's hard to say Bolton have "got away" with things, when they've had a miserable first 6-8 weeks playing kids, and started with a massive points deudction.
But...it does still set a precedent that you can just pull out of a game like they did.
Their kids would have played an extra game, they weren't having to work 12hour shifts down the mines!
But i take people's point that we got lucky playing them early doors.
Very possibly the EFL have decided that since Bolton are going down anyway another three points is neither here nor there. It's not fair on Doncaster, but short of awarding them the three points automatically there's not much the EFL can do.
@Twizz said:
There wasn't any need to punish Bolton though, they should simply have awarded the 3 points to the opposition teams for the matches that Bolton didn't fulfil.
That way, IMHO, everyone would have been treated fairly.
Although Doncaster would have lost out on a fairly sizeable chunk of money from the loss of a game against a (nominally) well supported club.
I think if they were to have received the 3 points and financial compensation (from a pot that probably needs to be created), then it would have been fair.
It was the away game, so Donny wouldn't be entitled to any compensation for ticket sales.
I disagree with the fixed penalty if financial and not points for missing a fixture. Say the fine was hypothetically £50k, we would struggle to find that but say a Sunderland might say it’s chump change and use this as an advantage. 3 points deducted and compensation to the other team imho.
Comments
Wow. That post took a turn at the end. What are you thinking happened at Bolton? Was Prince Andrew involved?
Personally I don't see how you can be let off one rule break because you've already broken others. The world would be made if we all had free crimes to commit and a tot up basis. Bit like a naughty Nectar card maybe.
From memory I think the game we played against them was before the final exodus of some of their remaining championship players and I think they had about 5 senior players on their books? It was after our game when the deal that had been promised fell through that most others left and they were more or less totally reliant on their your team.
So yes, we did get a big of a free hit, but not quite as easy a one as the teams that followed in the next few weeks
Bolton team v Wycombe:
GK Mathews - Played every league game
RB Brockbank - Currently injured but highly rated and played a few Champ games last season
CB Edwards - Not involved since takeover
CB Zouma - Their first choice CB at the moment
LB Earl - Bit deceptive since he went off injured after 15 mins but recently back starting and has played 30 games in Champ last couple of seasons
DM Murphy - Senior player still regularly playing
DM Lowe - Senior player still regularly playing
AM Weir - Mostly an unsued sub last couple of months
CM Oztumer - Sold to Charlton in Championship
AM Politic - Mostly come on as a second half substitute recently
CF Brown - Not involved since takeover
So after their starting XI only 3 Edwards, Weir and Brown are not regularly playing in a team who've won their last 3 games. Their team that day wasn't as weak as some people are making out.
Zouma was in my opinion the best centre back we have seen at Adams Park this season as well @Croider.
Yoan Zouma (brother of Chelsea and France defender Kurt) “handled” Bayo very impressively. Very strong young player.
sign him up
Decision upheld:
Their game with Doncaster which they pulled out of at a day's notice - scheduled for August - still hasn't been rearranged. So basically, if you don't fancy a game, go ahead and pull out? Great precedent...
@chairboyscentral Your summary conclusion isn't entirely accurate though, is it? You've missed out the bit in the verdict about Bolton's mitigating circumstances at the time being part of the consideration. So it would only be a 'precedent' if a future situation had the same or similar circumstances surrounding it.
Well they didn't seem to take Macclesfield's mitigating circumstances into account when deducting them points partly for failing to fulfil a fixture: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/19/macclesfield-docked-six-points-league-two-bristol-rovers
I get what you're saying, but they really should have come down hard to send out a message to other clubs. To be honest, I don't think Bolton should have been allowed to start the season.
Surely though, Bolton, like Sunderland and Ipswich shouldn't have to play in this shit lLeague!
Bolton big team. Bury/Macc little teams. All we can do is try to ensure they are relegated.
And there's nothing dodgy at all about the EFL's in-house lawyer Nick Craig being a lifelong Bolton fan.
While the world of football forums (and forums in general come to that) loves a conspiracy theory, I am not sure its justified in this case.
Bolton ran into severe financial difficulty , entered administration and were docked 12 points. As part of that financial difficulty and administration they failed to fulfil fixtures (two). They by the skin of their teeth found a buyer to get them out of this trouble and now appear relatively stable again.
Bury ran into severe financial difficulty. They failed to find a buyer to get them out of it (although at the very last minute a mystery buyer claimed to have been found - again)
Macclesfield ran into severe financial difficulty but have yet to go into administration. They missed two fixtures and have so far been docked six points (possibly likely to increase to ten).
While the EFL appealed against the independent commission in respect of Bolton's points deduction, I am minded to agree with the commission that any further penalty would be effectively penalising Bolton for their financial issues twice. Similarly if Macclesfield do require administration, I would hope that their punishment is capped at a total 12 points including the existing penalties.
I see the EFL statement refers to the fact that they intend tio introduce a fixed term penalty for missing games into the rules. This situation hadn't happened before but that seems a sensible move,.
Club in turmoil that barely exists and has little or no senior players struggles to fulfill three games in a week, manages to sort themselves out, gets big points deduction anyway for going into admin, survives, game eventually gets rescheduled. No harm done.
Really wonder about people asking for them to get hammered. Could be us easily. Agree with @LeedsBlue these are special circumstances. Trying to keep the 91 together should overtake petty arguments they somehow got it easy.
Doncaster will now have to play a stronger Bolton team when they should have benefitted from playing them at the beginning of the season like we did - although that in itself feels a ludicrous thing to say. They also have to play a midweek away game late in the season, when the original fixture was postponed entirely because of their opponents - not really fair. One thing's for sure: the integrity of League One has been badly damaged this season.
No-one is I suspect questioning that Bolton Bury and now Macclesfield is far from ideal and has had an impact on both the bottom divisions.
surely better though if possible not to kill off clubs if it can possibly be avoided even if there is some damage to the competition. Has to be a limit though. To me got the right balance with Bolton and Bury. Macc hasn't finished yet.
Just comparing this Bolton thing to Ipswich cancelling matches due to international call ups for players rarely in their first team. The only conclusion I can come to is some clubs can do what they like and others can't.
In recent years we've had match day squads decimated by injury and suspension and with no youth to call on have been at the limit to fulfil the fixture. I wonder about the welfare of those players, especially those who played through injuries. Maybe we should have played the player welfare card and my fear with this ruling is that a club will, safe they will not get a penalty.
Or is it as simple as playing on yellow card? You can get away with more with a part penalty against you.
it was entirely in the rules for Ipswich to postpone their fixture due to call-ups, and has been that way for a long time.
It has never been in the rules that clubs can unilaterally move fixtures because their players are fed up of not being paid.
Which is why Bolton and Macclesfield have been punished and that the EFL now intends to put in place fixed penalties to address a new problem not foreseen previously.
Bolton haven't been punished for their two unfulfilled fixtures, though.
Bolton didn't cancel because their senior players didn't get paid, they had already mostly cleared off and left the kids to it by then. If they didn't have a youth team they'd probably have been wound up.
I have no idea if their youth team are up to three games in a week.
Arguably the integrity of the league was damaged by letting us thrash their kids when it was fairly obvious they'd be more of a test for others later, though if they let Oyston, the guy at Charlton and 2 lots of Bury cons carry on as they please we shouldn't be too surprised.
The independent commission appeared to see the two unfilled fixtures and the administration as all one issue and therefore the punishment applied related to both manifestations of the same issue, @Chairboyscentral. Have to say I agree with them.
I also agree that it would make sense to include a specific penalty for such instances in the rules going forward.
There wasn't any need to punish Bolton though, they should simply have awarded the 3 points to the opposition teams for the matches that Bolton didn't fulfil.
That way, IMHO, everyone would have been treated fairly.
Depends if the match is eventually played or not. I'd say each unfulfilled fixture should = 3 points deducted. That way, even if they win the re-arranged game, they don't really gain anything from it.
If it doesn't get played, that's when it could get messy. They're lucky their game v Brentford last season - which didn't end up getting played - had no implications for either side.
...and skint teams miss out on revenue, fans miss out on games, and everyone else moans they had to play but these teams got byes, life's unfair.
Although Doncaster would have lost out on a fairly sizeable chunk of money from the loss of a game against a (nominally) well supported club.
I think if they were to have received the 3 points and financial compensation (from a pot that probably needs to be created), then it would have been fair.
The whole thing is an absolute mess, and it's hard to say Bolton have "got away" with things, when they've had a miserable first 6-8 weeks playing kids, and started with a massive points deudction.
But...it does still set a precedent that you can just pull out of a game like they did.
Their kids would have played an extra game, they weren't having to work 12hour shifts down the mines!
But i take people's point that we got lucky playing them early doors.
Very possibly the EFL have decided that since Bolton are going down anyway another three points is neither here nor there. It's not fair on Doncaster, but short of awarding them the three points automatically there's not much the EFL can do.
It was the away game, so Donny wouldn't be entitled to any compensation for ticket sales.
I disagree with the fixed penalty if financial and not points for missing a fixture. Say the fine was hypothetically £50k, we would struggle to find that but say a Sunderland might say it’s chump change and use this as an advantage. 3 points deducted and compensation to the other team imho.