Bolton - The game goes ahead

[Donnybob]

The real sickened here is that Bolton have, in effect, not received any punishment. In fact they have been rewarded.

Points deduction suspended so in effect, meaningless.

Fine to pay, £35,000.

Expected match day income from rearranged fixture, bumper gate in the circumstances, probably circa £350,000.

Some punishment, eh?

[Noblot]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

[silent majority]

You see this bit;

At a hearing on Thursday 14 November 2019, the Club pleaded guilty to the charges and, after hearing representations from both parties, the independent panel has ruled that Bolton Wanderers will be subject to a two point deduction for the fixture against Brentford and a further three points for the match against Doncaster Rovers.

You're assuming one of those parties is us, it isn't.

Are you saying DRFC never made representations?

Representations to the Independent Panel? No, not us.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

Yes, you may have had a good brief on the case. We have no issue with Bolton efforts to protect themselves through difficult times however, you must be able to see the dangerous precedent this sets and one that every club should be uncomfortable with.

Come the re-arranged game, if any of our key players are injured, suspended or tired, mentally fatigued etc, we will pull the game with less than 36 hours notice, pay the fine and play the game at some later date.

[redandwhitearmy]

Staggering decision to be honest, what a mess this really is.

I really hope we win that game now, also hope that they’re relegated. The only good thing is that there’s some clarity and closure on the situation.

[Noblot]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

Yes, you may have had a good brief on the case. We have no issue with Bolton efforts to protect themselves through difficult times however, you must be able to see the dangerous precedent this sets and one that every club should be uncomfortable with.

Come the re-arranged game, if any of our key players are injured, suspended or tired, mentally fatigued etc, we will pull the game with less than 36 hours notice, pay the fine and play the game at some later date.

I don't think it does, necessarily. We were obviously able to argue the mitigating circumstances very convincingly, and that's unlikely to be the case if a club simply chooses not to play because it's convenient.

[pib]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

That last point is very naive in my view.

The match was scheduled to be played a couple of weeks before the transfer deadline, so there were the following possible outcomes...

- Takeover goes through and Bolton sign a raft of senior players to fulfil their fixtures, sparing the “kids”
- Takeover doesn’t happen and Bolton go out of business and can’t fulfil their fixtures anyway, sparing the “kids”

In either outcome, Bolton’s “kids” would not have been having to play Saturday-Tuesday week-in-week out anyway, not least because you only had two fixtures after the one with DRFC in August, and they were both on Saturday’s.

This all makes it look like a cynical ploy to buy more time to bring in some experienced players and play as many fixtures as possible with this new squad. It’s the exploitation of a regulation that hasn’t actually been proven to apply, in order to gain an advantage you wouldn’t otherwise have had.

[dickos1]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

Yes, you may have had a good brief on the case. We have no issue with Bolton efforts to protect themselves through difficult times however, you must be able to see the dangerous precedent this sets and one that every club should be uncomfortable with.

Come the re-arranged game, if any of our key players are injured, suspended or tired, mentally fatigued etc, we will pull the game with less than 36 hours notice, pay the fine and play the game at some later date.

I don't think it does, necessarily. We were obviously able to argue the mitigating circumstances very convincingly, and that's unlikely to be the case if a club simply chooses not to play because it's convenient.

You as a club chose not to sign any players, Parkinson asked the efl if they could sign players on short term contracts the answer was yes.
Parkinson opted not to

[Noblot]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

That last point is very naive in my view.

The match was scheduled to be played a couple of weeks before the transfer deadline, so there were the following possible outcomes...

- Takeover goes through and Bolton sign a raft of senior players to fulfil their fixtures, sparing the “kids”
- Takeover doesn’t happen and Bolton go out of business and can’t fulfil their fixtures anyway, sparing the “kids”

In either outcome, Bolton’s “kids” would not have been having to play Saturday-Tuesday week-in-week out anyway, not least because you only had two fixtures after the one with DRFC in August, and they were both on Saturday’s.

This all makes it look like a cynical ploy to buy more time to bring in some experienced players and play as many fixtures as possible with this new squad. It’s the exploitation of a regulation that hasn’t actually been proven to apply, in order to gain an advantage you wouldn’t otherwise have had.

For a number of the seventeen and eighteen-year-olds we were forced to play, it would've been something like their fourth match in around a fortnight. The FA's guidelines on young players are pretty strict on preventing players of that age from playing senior football so frequently in such a short space of time. I can certainly understand the skepticism from others about what happened, but that is the reason why we didn't fulfill the fixture.

The fear at the time was that we'd be liquidated. Absolutely no-one at the club or amongst the supporters was concerned about us being competitive in the league because we were solely focused on remaining in existence and continuing to have a club to support, no matter what league we played in. It was a horrendous period.

[Noblot]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

Yes, you may have had a good brief on the case. We have no issue with Bolton efforts to protect themselves through difficult times however, you must be able to see the dangerous precedent this sets and one that every club should be uncomfortable with.

Come the re-arranged game, if any of our key players are injured, suspended or tired, mentally fatigued etc, we will pull the game with less than 36 hours notice, pay the fine and play the game at some later date.

I don't think it does, necessarily. We were obviously able to argue the mitigating circumstances very convincingly, and that's unlikely to be the case if a club simply chooses not to play because it's convenient.

You as a club chose not to sign any players, Parkinson asked the efl if they could sign players on short term contracts the answer was yes.
Parkinson opted not to

We were permitted to sign two players on the opening day, one on a short-term, inexpensive contract and another on loan from a local club. But that was it. We had by that stage signed Jack Hobbs but we weren't allowed to complete his signing, and therefore play him, until after the takeover had been completed.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

Yes, you may have had a good brief on the case. We have no issue with Bolton efforts to protect themselves through difficult times however, you must be able to see the dangerous precedent this sets and one that every club should be uncomfortable with.

Come the re-arranged game, if any of our key players are injured, suspended or tired, mentally fatigued etc, we will pull the game with less than 36 hours notice, pay the fine and play the game at some later date.

I don't think it does, necessarily. We were obviously able to argue the mitigating circumstances very convincingly, and that's unlikely to be the case if a club simply chooses not to play because it's convenient.

Which brings it down to how good lawyers are therefore compromising the integrity of the game on the pitch. Clubs who can afford good lawyers are therefore more likely to chance their arm and pay the consequences later.

[DD]

I've posted this on another thread but think it is relevant;
Many issues here ......however - I'm sure someone (Dutch uncle?) can work this one out......
At the time of the game what was the average age of Bolton That day?
And of DRFC?
And of DRFC without our centagenarian Mr James Coppinger?
Furious!!!
I recall at time roughly working this out (based on the  previous matches played) and there was little difference!!!!!

[pib]

Exactly DBR.

I personally don’t take issue with the game needing to be played. I understand the reasons for that and how it could further affect the integrity of the league if it wasn’t.

However, the two problems with it are that the Bolton punishment isn’t strong, or immediate enough, meaning they’ve essentially got away with it.

Secondly, with reference to my previous post, they’ve essentially got out of the game in August on a loophole - for reasons outlined above I don’t believe for one minute that they genuinely felt there was a danger of their young players playing twice a week for the foreseeable future. I think they needed a reason to delay the game until they had a decent team together... and they found one! So in essence, they have got a better outcome on the field than they perhaps should’ve done by having an eagle-eyed lawyer who was able to find an excuse for them.

I see plenty of Bolton fans online are proud of that... if that’s something they feel proud to boast about then I pity them.

[albie]

1.
 This is a re-arrangement of the original fixture.
2.
 Fault has been found with the original decision to cancel.
3.
 Sanctions have been applied to the guilty party (Bolton, pending).

Why then should the guilty party benefit by being able to field players NOT registered with the club at the time of the original unreasonable cancellation?

Failure to address this will leave an open door for "strategic" cancellations in future.

[PDX_Rover]

It’s like having a fight and saying, hang on, give me half an hour to get my big brother’s even bigger mates. You stay right there.

[RoverAtUni]

Play the youth team, citing the fact our first team need a break.

[roversdude]

But Bolton then immediately put their youngsters at risk by playing them in quick succession despite the raft of signings

[Noblot]

I've posted this on another thread but think it is relevant;
Many issues here ......however - I'm sure someone (Dutch uncle?) can work this one out......
At the time of the game what was the average age of Bolton That day?
And of DRFC?
And of DRFC without our centagenarian Mr James Coppinger?
Furious!!!
I recall at time roughly working this out (based on the  previous matches played) and there was little difference!!!!!

Looking at the average age of the teams misses the point. We could theoretically have filled half our team with 35-year-olds and had a much higher average age than your team but that wouldn't have affected the principle - that we had seventeen-year-olds playing so many minutes in such a short timeframe.

[Noblot]

Exactly DBR.

I personally don’t take issue with the game needing to be played. I understand the reasons for that and how it could further affect the integrity of the league if it wasn’t.

However, the two problems with it are that the Bolton punishment isn’t strong, or immediate enough, meaning they’ve essentially got away with it.

Secondly, with reference to my previous post, they’ve essentially got out of the game in August on a loophole - for reasons outlined above I don’t believe for one minute that they genuinely felt there was a danger of their young players playing twice a week for the foreseeable future. I think they needed a reason to delay the game until they had a decent team together... and they found one! So in essence, they have got a better outcome on the field than they perhaps should’ve done by having an eagle-eyed lawyer who was able to find an excuse for them.

I see plenty of Bolton fans online are proud of that... if that’s something they feel proud to boast about then I pity them.

It's simply not the case. The club was in such peril at that stage that the only aim was to ensure it's survival (I mean in terms of existence, not avoiding relegation). Football itself became irrelevant.

And it makes no sense to play against a relegation rival but not yourselves. If we were trying to cynically avoid playing teams so as to not affect our chances of staying up, we'd have refused to play the Saturday before instead.

[Noblot]

Some things worthy of note:

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

Yes, you may have had a good brief on the case. We have no issue with Bolton efforts to protect themselves through difficult times however, you must be able to see the dangerous precedent this sets and one that every club should be uncomfortable with.

Come the re-arranged game, if any of our key players are injured, suspended or tired, mentally fatigued etc, we will pull the game with less than 36 hours notice, pay the fine and play the game at some later date.

I don't think it does, necessarily. We were obviously able to argue the mitigating circumstances very convincingly, and that's unlikely to be the case if a club simply chooses not to play because it's convenient.

Which brings it down to how good lawyers are therefore compromising the integrity of the game on the pitch. Clubs who can afford good lawyers are therefore more likely to chance their arm and pay the consequences later.

I think the independent disciplinary panel would see through any such attempt quite easily. In our case, there were strong, unprecedented mitigating factors and that's unlikely to be the case should a club simply choose not to play.

[since-1969]

Why was the punishment for Rovers not treated as a second offence as it happened the following season and the sentence that was applicable to the first should now be added along with the fines and the 5 points should now be deducted .

[Filo]

I just wonder why the EFL took it upon itself to award Brentford the 3pts and then refer that case to the independant hearing, but in our case did n’t bother and sent the whole case to the hearing. We await Rovers response, I really do hope that our club takes thisto the highest level if needed, I just wonder who was on the hearing panel, someone with close connections to Bolton perhaps? Everyone can see that theres a massive injustice here and you look at both the EFL statement and Boltons statement and our club and our losses and inconvienience do not get a mention. The decision is a disgrace and brings the whole competition into disrepute

[sedwardsdrfc]

imo appeal and take it as far as we can. Obviously refuse to play while the appeal is unanswered and if they uphold the original decision then appeal that decision. Just for sport we should be as awkward as possible and make the EFL squirm.

[Noblot]

Why was the punishment for Rovers not treated as a second offence as it happened the following season and the sentence that was applicable to the first should now be added along with the fines and the 5 points should now be deducted .

Probably because the activation of any suspension can only apply to offences that occur after it's been imposed. As it hadn't been imposed at the time of the second postponement, it remains a suspension.

[Noblot]

I just wonder why the EFL took it upon itself to award Brentford the 3pts and then refer that case to the independant hearing, but in our case did n’t bother and sent the whole case to the hearing. We await Rovers response, I really do hope that our club takes thisto the highest level if needed, I just wonder who was on the hearing panel, someone with close connections to Bolton perhaps? Everyone can see that theres a massive injustice here and you look at both the EFL statement and Boltons statement and our club and our losses and inconvienience do not get a mention. The decision is a disgrace and brings the whole competition into disrepute

Because in the Brentford case, the EFL's own regulations stated that it had to be replayed within four calendar days of the season ending. As we didn't have a safety certificate, the match couldn't be replayed within that timeframe.

[Frankie Rennie]

I think some of you Rovers fans need to see the bigger picture here, calling off the Doncaster game was only the tip of a much bigger iceberg of issues BWFC had with the EFL over a two year period which I won’t go into because it’s of little or no concern to you.

Taking the calling off of the Donny game in isolation, Wanderers were guilty of not following rules and need to be punished. It was similar but not the same as our Brentford game where the day before the match our whole senior squad refused to play the game. Wanderers advised the EFL that they would fulfil the fixture with Academy players but since they had played on the Thursday, the EFL refused permission because of their rules on young player safety. Since the game couldn’t be replayed given the situation in our club the game was awarded to Brentford.

Phil Parkinson then applied the same logic to the EFL regarding the Doncaster game, which in itself was fair enough but obviously inconvenienced Doncaster through not following the rules properly.

It is right that Wanderers are punished, which they have been, but there is plenty of time to play the game and not potentially disadvantage other L1 clubs by giving points to Doncaster. Your main complaint about now playing a stronger team in reality doesn’t stand up I’m afraid, so the game will be quite rightly rescheduled.

[deebee]

Some things worthy of note:
SO with this in mind as you played the young players on the Saturday then on the Tuesday the following week you broke the FA's strict rules, therefor you need punishing for that as well.

1. This isn't the decision of the EFL, it's the decision of the independent disciplinary panel.

2. It's a much more lenient punishment than I thought we'd get.

3. Your club can't appeal, but the EFL can.

4. Given the pressure other clubs will put them under, there's a very good chance they will. Although, if the leniency of the verdict is anything to go by, it would seem the independent disciplinary panel was unimpressed by their involvement in the debacle.

5. We, quite genuinely, didn't fail to fulfill the fixture because we were worried we'd get beaten heavily. At that stage, all efforts were focused on ensuring the club survived, and the decision not to play was taken with regard to the FA's guidelines relating to young players playing matches too often within such a tight timeframe.

Yes, you may have had a good brief on the case. We have no issue with Bolton efforts to protect themselves through difficult times however, you must be able to see the dangerous precedent this sets and one that every club should be uncomfortable with.

Come the re-arranged game, if any of our key players are injured, suspended or tired, mentally fatigued etc, we will pull the game with less than 36 hours notice, pay the fine and play the game at some later date.

I don't think it does, necessarily. We were obviously able to argue the mitigating circumstances very convincingly, and that's unlikely to be the case if a club simply chooses not to play because it's convenient.

You as a club chose not to sign any players, Parkinson asked the efl if they could sign players on short term contracts the answer was yes.
Parkinson opted not to

We were permitted to sign two players on the opening day, one on a short-term, inexpensive contract and another on loan from a local club. But that was it. We had by that stage signed Jack Hobbs but we weren't allowed to complete his signing, and therefore play him, until after the takeover had been completed.

So with this in mind as you played the young players on Saturday then on Tuesday the following week you broke the FA's strict rules, therefore you need punishing for that as well.

[Michael Shaw]

I will sum up my appraisal of the outcome in one word, “cowardice”.

The EFL have allowed Bolton to disrespect them (and Doncaster) and they have let them get away with it rather than dish out a suitable immediate punishment.

That's my opinion anyway.

[Metalmicky]

But Bolton then immediately put their youngsters at risk by playing them in quick succession despite the raft of signings

I'm sure that they started the next game (24 Aug) with 9 of the team that started on 17 Aug and then followed that up by starting 7 of the same in the next league game on 31 Aug (not including 2 subs) and 7 in the next game (EFL Cup) on 3 Sep....   In all these fixtures they had a full bench and so if fatigue was an issue why not rotate the players accordingly...

[Alan Southstand]

What goes around, Keith.......

(From the BBC site, this morning)

Bolton boss Keith Hill says he has no sympathy for other League One clubs after his side escaped a further points deduction for failing to fulfil games.

Wanderers were given a five-point deduction, suspended for 18 months, relating to two unplayed matches.

The Trotters did not fulfil their fixtures against Brentford last season and Doncaster Rovers earlier this term.

The Greater Manchester club had already received a 12-point deduction for entering administration in May.

Saturday's win against MK Dons moved Wanderers into a positive points tally for the first time this season and Thursday's announcement kept them on one point, 12 from safety.

Bolton given suspended five-point punishment
"I'm really pleased for the new owners," said Hill, who was appointed on 31 August, three days after Football Ventures (Whites) Limited completed its takeover.

"For us to not receive further punishment is testament to their belief. We can certainly stay in the league and we're going to give it our best shot.

"Nothing has changed with my thinking. There's a certain number I think we need to get points-wise out of the next 30 games and that's not changed.

"There will be an enormous expectation but we still have a lot of work to do. We need at least 50 points so we need another 49 in the remaining games. That could see us home."

Bolton pleaded guilty to the charges at 14 November's hearing and subsequently a disciplinary commission also ruled they will be handed a financial penalty.

Wanderers were fined £20,000 for the unplayed Brentford game and £50,000 for the Doncaster match, with half of both amounts also suspended for 18 months.

'The impossible dream is now a reality' - Hill