Bolton - The game goes ahead

[Metalmicky]

In addition 9 of the team that played on 17 August also played in EFL Cup match on 13 August - without issue..........

Bolton - 10 Aug 19 - League 1
•   43 Alexander
•   21 Brockbank
•   26 Edwards
•   30 Zouma
•   38 White
•   36 King-Harmes - Hurford-L
•   35 Graham
•   14 Weir
•   22 Politic
•   33 Brown
•   27 Darcy
Substitutes
•   31 Boon
•   34 Senior
•   37 Hurford-Lockett
•   39 Brown-Sterling
•   41 Richards
•   44 Riley
•   46 Hutchinson   

Bolton - 13 Aug 19 - EFL Cup
•   20 Matthews
•   21 Brockbank
•   26 Edwards - Boonat 54
•   30 Zouma
•   4 Lowe
•   36 King-Harmes
•   14 Weir
•   8 Murphy
•   22 Politic - Hurford-Lockett 69
•   33 Brown - Brown-Sterling 78
•   27 Darcy
Substitutes
•   31 Boon
•   34 Senior
•   35 Graham
•   37 Hurford-Lockett
•   38 White
•   39 Brown-Sterling
•   43 Alexander   

Bolton - 17 Aug 19 - League 1
•   20 Matthews
•   21 Brockbank
•   4 Lowe
•   30 Zouma
•   38 White - Boon 68
•   36 King-Harmes - Brown-Sterling 75
•   35 Graham
•   8 Murphy
•   14 Weir
•   33 Brown - Riley 88
•   27 Darcy
Substitutes
•   31 Boon
•   34 Senior
•   39 Brown-Sterling
•   41 Richards
•   42 Osigwe
•   43 Alexander
•   44 Riley

Bolton - 24 Aug 19 - League 1
•   20 Matthews
•   21 Brockbank
•   4 Lowe
•   30 Zouma
•   38 White - Boon 68
•   35 Graham - Hurford-Lockett 45
•   8 Murphy
•   36 King-Harmes
•   14 Weir
•   27 Darcy
•   39 Brown-Sterling - Brown 85
Substitutes
•   31 Boon
•   33 Brown
•   34 Senior
•   37 Hurford-Lockett
•   41 Richards
•   43 Alexander
•   44 Riley   

Bolton - 31 Aug 19 - League 1
•   20 Matthews
•   21 Brockbank
•   5 Hobbs - Graham 90+1
•   30 Zouma
•   31 Boon
•   8 Murphy
•   27 Darcy - King-Harmes 58
•   4 Lowe
•   14 Weir
•   22 Politic – Senior 86
•   33 Brown
Substitutes
•   34 Senior
•   35 Graham
•   36 King-Harmes
•   38 White
•   39 Brown-Sterling
•   41 Richards
•   43 Alexander   

Bolton - 3 Sep 19 - EFL Trophy
•   43 Alexander
•   21 Brockbank
•   34 Senior
•   30 Zouma
•   31 Boon
•   36 King-Harmes – Fitzmartin 76
•   14 Weir
•   35 Graham
•   22 Politic – White 82
•   33 Brown - Brown-Sterling 65
•   27 Darcy
Substitutes
•   46 Hutchinson
•   42 Osigwe
•   38 White
•   39 Brown-Sterling
•   ?    Whalley
•   ?    Edmondson
•   ?    Fitzmartin   

Bolton – 14 Sep 19 - League 1
•   20 Matthews
•   2 Emmanuel
•   5 Hobbs
•   6 Wright
•   12 Chicksen
•   28 Bridcutt
•   22 Politic
•   8 Murphy - Darcy 62
•   14 Weir - Lowe 39
•   17 Verlinden
•   11 Crawford
Substitutes
•   1 Alnwick
•   4 Lowe
•   27 Darcy
•   30 Zouma
•   31 Boon
•   33 Brown
•   34 Senior•   

[Alan Southstand]

Hot off the press:

The EFL are appealing the decision.

The EFL is disappointed by conclusions reached by the independent Disciplinary Commission in respect of Bolton Wanderers and it is firm view of the League that sanction imposed is too lenient when consideration is given to all the circumstances of the case...
Given the potential for postponements to have a significant impact on competition integrity and, following receipt of advice overnight on the reasons provided, the League will appeal the outcome in the strongest possible sense.

[Copps is Magic]

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.

No sensible rovers fan (who's not a troll) has any qualms with Bolton fans at how your club was run before, and you will find a lot who have sympathies.

BUT your last sentence has no credibility whatsoever. You've won your last three leagues games for petes sake! You're in 'good form'. You were getting tonked 5 nil every week before. Its a completely different club - with different ownership, management, players etc. The old Bolton COULD NOT fulfil its fixture against us. That's the rules of the EFL and the language in the EFL regulations. THAT Bolton could not fulfil its fixture against Brentford, therefore they were awarded the 3 points.

Anything else is twisting this very basic reality.

[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.

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.

Was Phil Parkinson not telling the truth when he said he spoke to the EFL before the Tranmere game about the situation and asked if he could sign players short term, and they said yes? He said he opted not to as he thought that would not be fair to those players who he couldn't guarantee a future to. His comments are documented in your local press and radio.

Anyway, those are not the main issues if this outcome is allowed to stand, as every club could now be open to abuse of the system if a club can put a credible medical report together and cancel games for their own benefit, at the detriment of others, which they are prepared to defend later and pay any consequences later, or not as the case maybe.

In addition, there is no thought or provision or protection for the victims, the clubs who adhere to the rules and manage their finances prudently.

For example. When both Bolton and Bury were not in a position to prove their financial ability, to fulfil the season, why were Bolton allowed to start the season? Why were Bury given strict deadlines to get things sorted and Bolton weren't? Why have Bury been buried and Bolton allowed to continue when potential takeovers were alleged to be 'imminent'?

You can understand the concerns that Bolton appear to have been given preferential treatment.

You don't have to tell us about the hardships of being under threat of your sheer existence. We've been there, served our time, and risen again. Bolton remain a League One club.

[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 .

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.

Sounds like bollox to me !!

[Frankie Rennie]

Donny, the difference was that we had a potential owner who had been certified fit and proper by the EFL, had proven money in place to buy the club, plus further finance to run the club for remainder of the season. Bury had none of this and sadly were forced to leave the league.

It was only through the fortitude of our new owners that they continued to give assurances to the EFL that they would buy the club despite the disruptive actions of our previous owner, that convinced the EFL to continue.

The Doncaster game is a completely separate issue. We should have advised both Doncaster and the EFL of the decision to cancel much earlier from which I believe the EFL would have agreed to the postponement which would have resulted in the same situation regarding the team make up. Yes we should be punished for not advising early enough but surely not for applying the same rules the EFL themselves applied to us against Brentford.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Donny, the difference was that we had a potential owner who had been certified fit and proper by the EFL, had proven money in place to buy the club, plus further finance to run the club for remainder of the season. Bury had none of this and sadly were forced to leave the league.

It was only through the fortitude of our new owners that they continued to give assurances to the EFL that they would buy the club despite the disruptive actions of our previous owner, that convinced the EFL to continue.

The Doncaster game is a completely separate issue. We should have advised both Doncaster and the EFL of the decision to cancel much earlier from which I believe the EFL would have agreed to the postponement which would have resulted in the same situation regarding the team make up. Yes we should be punished for not advising early enough but surely not for applying the same rules the EFL themselves applied to us against Brentford.

Yes, there were different complexities involved with the takeovers, and as you are well aware, there were other parties involved which protracted the issue. I believe, had the EFL served notice on Bolton sooner, it would be more likely the takeover would have been resolved sooner.

Anyway, that's a matter of football governance  which hopefully is being reviewed.

Yes, and had Phil Parkinson and/or the administrator had gone through the correct channels, you know as well as I do, the EFL were likely to have given the same response they had given 60 hours before, and that was to play the game, just as you had to play the Tranmere game.

Everyone accepts there has to be a punishment however,  even you must understand why it's thought the punishment is too lenient, and that's not necessarily just about whether we should be awarded the game.

The sanction should apply immediately. For me, I saw the Brentford game as a spent sanction, but for our game it has to be applied this season. The judgement does not serve sufficient deterrent or protection for other rule abiding clubs.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

Noblot.

However you dress it up in point 5,the fact is that you were unable to fulfill a fixture. End of story. Full stop.

The reason is immaterial. I may feel for you in that your club was mismanaged for years but that is irrelevant.

Your club was unable to fulfill a fixture. The idea that you can get in that position and emerge with essentially no sanction is utterly outrageous. This will undoubtedly be overturned on appeal. Be sure if it doesn't, you've set a precedent for chaos,every time a club feel it would be advantageous for them to cancel a match.

[Campsall rover]

Donny, the difference was that we had a potential owner who had been certified fit and proper by the EFL, had proven money in place to buy the club, plus further finance to run the club for remainder of the season. Bury had none of this and sadly were forced to leave the league.

It was only through the fortitude of our new owners that they continued to give assurances to the EFL that they would buy the club despite the disruptive actions of our previous owner, that convinced the EFL to continue.

The Doncaster game is a completely separate issue. We should have advised both Doncaster and the EFL of the decision to cancel much earlier from which I believe the EFL would have agreed to the postponement which would have resulted in the same situation regarding the team make up. Yes we should be punished for not advising early enough but surely not for applying the same rules the EFL themselves applied to us against Brentford.

Why should it not be the same as Brentford?  You were allowed to start the season and you failed to fulfil your obligation of playing a scheduled fixture. Not only that you didn’t ask permission from the EFL and you didn’t even have the decency to inform Doncaster Rovers.
Please explain Frankie Rennie.

Just like to say it’s good to get a Bolton fan on here even if we can’t agree with what your saying.

And yes most sensible DRFC supporters sympathise with the plight your club was in, under the ownership of Anderson. We know what it is like to have a rogue owner as we had one in the 90’s who almost completely destroyed our club. Thanks to him we lost our league status and without the intervention of John Ryan we may not have had a club at all, or at best we might have ended up in the Northern Premier league.

[Metalmicky]

Donny, the difference was that we had a potential owner who had been certified fit and proper by the EFL, had proven money in place to buy the club, plus further finance to run the club for remainder of the season. Bury had none of this and sadly were forced to leave the league.

It was only through the fortitude of our new owners that they continued to give assurances to the EFL that they would buy the club despite the disruptive actions of our previous owner, that convinced the EFL to continue.

The Doncaster game is a completely separate issue. We should have advised both Doncaster and the EFL of the decision to cancel much earlier from which I believe the EFL would have agreed to the postponement which would have resulted in the same situation regarding the team make up. Yes we should be punished for not advising early enough but surely not for applying the same rules the EFL themselves applied to us against Brentford.

Why should it not be the same as Brentford?  You were allowed to start the season and you failed to fulfil your obligation of playing a scheduled fixture. Not only that you didn’t ask permission from the EFL and you didn’t even have the decency to inform Doncaster Rovers.
Please explain Frankie Rennie.

Add to this it was a repeat (second) offence - so in theory the consequences should be more severe if anything......

Just like to say it’s good to get a Bolton fan on here even if we can’t agree with what your saying.

And yes most sensible DRFC supporters sympathise with the plight your club was in, under the ownership of Anderson. We know what it is like to have a rogue owner as we had one in the 90’s who almost completely destroyed our club. Thanks to him we lost our league status and without the intervention of John Ryan we may not have had a club at all, or at best we might have ended up in the Northern Premier league.

[Dabby]

The English Football League will appeal against the "lenient" suspended points deduction given to Bolton Wanderers over unfulfilled fixtures.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50516578

[Catte]

OK Wanderers fan in peace.

No axe to grind, just want to clear some of the gumf that has been written about our club.

1. The EFL and ken Anderson have been complicit in our club reaching the desperate state that we found ourselves in. No action will be taken against Anderson or Shaun Harvey the EFL have painted themselves into a corner by being week over the period Harvey was the shot caller.
2. Brentford game - Anderson would not pay the players or the staff, the game could not go ahead due to Ground safety staff not being paid and not prepared to guarantee attendance. EFL then took the easy step as no impact on the league they gave the points to Brentford who won 1-0 (Worldy goal scored from London) EFL should have played the game behind closed doors this would have solved that one, but EFL and Harvey used the power of the pen.
3. This season we had from May FV (New owners) in position to buy the club, Anderson played power games to try and grasp every £1 which is why we ended up the take over stalling right up until he feared he would miss his pay day and took what was on offer.
4. Up until the take over we played with great support the kids, they were shattered playing so frequently these guys are not all "Wayne Rooney's" they are young lads trying to make their way in this profession.
5. Parkinson (Don't get me started) at the previous mid week match approached New EFL about a postponement based on the exhausted kids, he was knocked back he requested signing short term players he was given permission. Guess what, players were not prepared to sign short term because they had no protection or guarantee's that if they were injured they would be supported whilst injured (Take over still not complete) so they would not sign a 30/60/90 day contract, without an offer should the take over occur be written into the contract.
6. Doncaster, no axe to grind it was unfortunate it was your team and we all agree the way Parkinson did this was wrong, and we accept we should be punished. However the reason the EFL want the game played is because they realise they should have done this with the Brentford game.
7. Bury, Bolton fans for the last 30-40 years have given to Bury fans collecting for their club, they are our neighbours they don't like us we think they are ok and many friends support one or other. They tragically are a busted flush at the moment, BWFC campaigned for them to be allowed into Div 2 next year, this is not popular with some other Managers. Their finances are a mess much worse than ours and the EFL allowed them to be bought by an owner who did not get vetted. Shaun Harvey take a bow.
8. I accept the 5 points suspended was lenient, I thought we would get 3 for the Doncaster game the EFL need to look inwards regards the Brentford game so expected 3 points and 3 suspended for 12 months.

as Bolton Wanderers we have been treated shabbily by the EFL, we held our hands up and said under the previous ownership mistakes have been made. As Bolton fans we love the Club as you love your club. We have been fighting the previous ownership for over two years, the EFL supported the previous owner.

Shaun Harvey had his EFL retirement party in London at our previous owners Restaurant, the man he claimed in February had the money to Finance BWFC for the season and future season's. EFL take a look at yourself.

Positives, we have new owners who can finance this club whatever division we are in, we would like to just talk about Football. We have a management team that want to play Football and understand the fans, being Bolton boys.
Hoping that the EFL get their act together, I suspect as above they will want the game to take place between us I would hope that any anger between the clubs and the fans will dissipate and if the game is re-scheduled that Bolton make an conciliatory offer to Doncaster Rovers. 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

Frankie

I think many DRFC fans do see a bigger picture here. I think we see that a club that has broken rules and called off a game unilaterally for whatever reason (putting pressure on the takeover process, protecting youngsters, other football or financial tactical reasons......???) has received a punishment which will not deter any other club in future making a tactical postponement in e.g. an injury crisis. Although thinking a just punishment would include awarding us the match (and any complaints from other league one clubs should be directed at Bolton for not playing, not at the EFL or DRFC), nevertheless some of us can get our head around playing the match if the longer term integrity of the league is not compromised. That is not the case here, as I think the EFL recognises by appealing. They are not appealing because they think DRFC has been hard done by.

As a second point, rather like Prince Andrew, your manager would have been IMHO better advised at least to apologise to DRFC club and fans for financial and other inconveniences suffered as a context, rather than going on the offensive with a 'Make Bolton Great Again' speech. He gave up the chance to calm things down. We have enough division in society at the moment without his 'no sympathy for other league one clubs' statement. As I have said before there is widepsread sympathy for Bolton (and Bury) fans which runs the risk of being diminished if this attitude remains.

We wish all fair minded fans of all clubs well.

[adamtherover]

It is right that Wanderers are punished, which they have been, .......

Really, a token gesture fine, and no points deduction, and the ability to actually play the game with a much stronger squad than that they had at the time..   Please enlighten me as to where you have been punished?

If you win the game, whenever its played, and escape relegation by 1 point for example, can you even begin to imagine the rammifications going forwards. Every club with an injury or suspension issue before a big game will just announce on twitter, you know,  the classy way, that they arn't playing. And just hope that the relevant parties that are effected are on-line that night.   
The EFL have been gutless allowing an independant party to make a decision,  their statement this morning 100% tells us all what we need to know. BWFC are not walking away from this scot free. The punishment has to be points,  a fine is irrelevant to rich owners. Else the entire integrity of the EFL as a valid honest competition is in doubt.

[JonWallsend]

Never expected us to be awarded the game and think it is perfectly reasonable and sensible to expect us to fulfil the fixture. However, really surprised there has not been a points deduction( I realise there is a suspended 5 point penalty) for Bolton.

“Perfectly reasonable and sensible to expect us to fulfil the fixture”
Are you serious?
Who are you, the Bolton Chief Executive. Are you being serious or is that a wind up?

No I am being serious. Looking ahead to this year's fixture, last game of the season, Rotherham already in play offs decide to cancel their game against Sunderland because they want everyone fully rested and can't risk their youngsters. Sunderland are awarded the game and leapfrog Rovers on goal difference, who unfortunately miss out on the play offs following a defeat at Blackpool.

 That is why you just can't give 3 points to teams. I'm sure you'd be insisting the game was played.  However, where the EFL have made a monumental blunder, and left themselves open to all kinds of  repercussions should Bolton stop up by virtue of any points accrued from the replayed game, is by not hitting them hard with an immediate and punitive points deduction.

As you see Campsall, not the opinions of the Bolton Chief Executive but reasoned viewpoint from a lifelong Rovers fan. They needed to be punished and they haven't been. The way they went about unileterally calling the game off was a disgrace but I don't see how us not playing them benefits anyone

Yes i  agree with you they of course should have had a further points deduction. Without that punishment there is no deterrent to other clubs doing the same. But we should not have to play a match that they unilaterally cancelled. We should have been awarded the 3 points. Surely you must agree with that. Yes/No?

Campsall. I don't think, for the reasons I have outlined above, that we can awarded the points. It is particularly galling and having been involved in junior football for a number of years where teams not fulfilling fixtures, is more prevalent, this would be the immediate course of action.

It is rare for this to happen in the professional game but I reiterate that the punishment should be applied to the club, Bolton, who called the game off. It has to be a minimum of 4 points, so that there can be nothing to gain from a positive result in the rearranged game. It can't become routine behaviour and that's why the EFL need to act, and indeed have appealed.

The punishment, as it stands, isn't a sufficient deterrent against copycat cancellations but, and it sticks in my throat and I don't like it,  I think we have to fulfil the fixture to avoid future abuse of the competiton

[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.

Was Phil Parkinson not telling the truth when he said he spoke to the EFL before the Tranmere game about the situation and asked if he could sign players short term, and they said yes? He said he opted not to as he thought that would not be fair to those players who he couldn't guarantee a future to. His comments are documented in your local press and radio.

Anyway, those are not the main issues if this outcome is allowed to stand, as every club could now be open to abuse of the system if a club can put a credible medical report together and cancel games for their own benefit, at the detriment of others, which they are prepared to defend later and pay any consequences later, or not as the case maybe.

In addition, there is no thought or provision or protection for the victims, the clubs who adhere to the rules and manage their finances prudently.

For example. When both Bolton and Bury were not in a position to prove their financial ability, to fulfil the season, why were Bolton allowed to start the season? Why were Bury given strict deadlines to get things sorted and Bolton weren't? Why have Bury been buried and Bolton allowed to continue when potential takeovers were alleged to be 'imminent'?

You can understand the concerns that Bolton appear to have been given preferential treatment.

You don't have to tell us about the hardships of being under threat of your sheer existence. We've been there, served our time, and risen again. Bolton remain a League One club.

No, he wouldn't have been lying. It was such a chaotic, constantly moving situation that no party was ever quite sure what we were and weren't permitted to do. We obviously thought we could sign and play Jack Hobbs but then found out we couldn't. Anyway, the idea that we could sign players in order to get matches on is fanciful - we couldn't guarantee we could pay the senior players we already had at the end of the month, never mind any new players we might've signed.

As for Bury, their situation was tragically different, as no takeover bid ever got past the due diligence stage (they were granted additional time in order to try and get past it). Further to this, they'd failed to provide the adequate proof to the EFL that they could meet the terms of the CVA. It's disgraceful what ultimately  happened to Bury but, on the face of it, I can understand why the EFL didn't allow them to start the season. Clearly, they shouldn't have allowed us to either, but it wasn't down to preferrential treatment (I'd hope the announcemdnt of today's appeal makes that clear), it was simply because it seemed as though we were on the verge of the takeover being completed. As a result of that decision, we're now left with the current car crash.

(And I wasn't telling you what it feels like to be under threst of liquidation, I was just explaining our situation.)

[bpoolrover]

https://fansonline.net/blackpool/mb/view.php?id=3417866 Some Blackpool fans views

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Just on the cancellation alone. The EFL should have acted immediately as follows.

1. Awarded the points to DRFC. No club under ANY circumstances can cancel a game without consent.
2. Commenced an investigation into the circumstances.
3. As a result of the investigation, either impose further sanctions depending on any mitigating circumstances OR refer the case to the FA for Disciplinary hearing.

There can and should be no doubt that is a fair and proper way of applying the rules and managing the conduct of clubs. If anyone involved with football at any level can't agree with that, then the game is in a right state.

[IDM]

Breaking my silence on this issue, after the EFL has said it will appeal.

When a club refuses to play or can’t play a fixture, in a manner which contravenes the competition rules, the fixture is forfeit and the only sensible outcome is to award the default victory to the opposition.

That is the best way to deter this at any level of football - don’t play and you lose the game.

Where the underlying reasons come into play, is in mitigation against the level of any further punishment.

Simple example - Macclesfield almost forfeit their f a cup first round tie.  Had they done so then Kingstonian would have had a bye to the second round, and the FA would have barred Macc from the cup next season, as a further punishment.

The EFL has rules which say clubs can’t unilaterally cancel fixtures, but they don’t have a rule to say what sanction/punishment applies.

This is a coincidence that DRFC are involved, it could have been any club, and the argument would be the same.

[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.

Noblot.

However you dress it up in point 5,the fact is that you were unable to fulfill a fixture. End of story. Full stop.

The reason is immaterial. I may feel for you in that your club was mismanaged for years but that is irrelevant.

Your club was unable to fulfill a fixture. The idea that you can get in that position and emerge with essentially no sanction is utterly outrageous. This will undoubtedly be overturned on appeal. Be sure if it doesn't, you've set a precedent for chaos,every time a club feel it would be advantageous for them to cancel a match.

Yes we did, but in any judgement there has to be due consideration to the mitigating circumstances. There is a prior precedent to this, when Blackpool had the final a match of the season abandoned part way through, the independent disciplinary panel determined that they should only be subjected to a suspended points deduction. Without any doubt, the fact the match started and the club itself was in a position to play were considered to be significant mitigating factors.

I don't believe a precedent has been set which means clubs can unilaterally postpone fixtures at will, because without the compelling mitigating factors, they'll almost certainly face a points deduction.

It's also worth noting, by the way, that most people connected to the club were taken aback by the leniency of the punishment, and fully expected a substantial points deduction. Given that's the case, the argument that we cynically avoided playing a fixture to aid of chances of avoiding relegation falls apart.

[redordead]

Reply received from EFL
 
Thank you for your email and for getting in touch on this matter.
 
As you may have noted from today’s further announcement, "The EFL is disappointed by the conclusions reached by the independent Disciplinary Commission in respect of Bolton Wanderers… and will appeal the outcome in the strongest possible sense."
 
To read the statement please click here https://www.efl.com/news/2019/november/efl-to-appeal-disciplinary-commission-decision/.
 
Thank you for contacting the EFL.
 
Regards,
 
Jessica
Supporter Services Department
EFL

[DonnyBazR0ver]

DFP latest viewpoint.

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers-only-one-club-was-punished-disciplinary-panels-verdict-and-it-wasnt-bolton-wanderers-1319925

[silent majority]

https://fansonline.net/blackpool/mb/view.php?id=3417866 Some Blackpool fans views

Interesting how I get talked about on another clubs forum. That's a bit weird.

But that particular individual has form for attempting to criticise me on forums or in emails, yet has never sought to do it face to face. And he's always wrong.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Well at least others on there see it differently.

Have you had chance to speak to Gavin? On a  scale of 1 to 10, how disappointed are the club with the decision?

[silent majority]

Well at least others on there see it differently.

Have you had chance to speak to Gavin? On a  scale of 1 to 10, how disappointed are the club with the decision?

That would be a 10. But there's a determination not to roll over.

[POD]

Reply received from EFL
 
Thank you for your email and for getting in touch on this matter.
 
As you may have noted from today’s further announcement, "The EFL is disappointed by the conclusions reached by the independent Disciplinary Commission in respect of Bolton Wanderers… and will appeal the outcome in the strongest possible sense."
 
To read the statement please click here https://www.efl.com/news/2019/november/efl-to-appeal-disciplinary-commission-decision/.
 
Thank you for contacting the EFL.
 
Regards,
 
Jessica
Supporter Services Department
EFL

It’s going to be some time before the game goes ahead.   The EFL are now appealing and if the ‘suspended’ points deduction and fine become ‘actual’ which I think that the EFL would deem more fair, then no doubt Bolton will then appeal the decision so matters drag on still further.  I can see it being the Spring before the game is played, so we need to crack on with rearranging our other matches and let the Bolton saga take its course.

[IDM]

Can Bolton appeal.?

[bpoolrover]

https://fansonline.net/blackpool/mb/view.php?id=3417866 Some Blackpool fans views

Interesting how I get talked about on another clubs forum. That's a bit weird.

But that particular individual has form for attempting to criticise me on forums or in emails, yet has never sought to do it face to face. And he's always wrong.

Yes I have defended you many times against him he seems to have it in for you, quite a few Blackpool fans have stood up for you thou, he is a Leeds fan by the way

[wing commander]

  I have a lot of sympathy for Bolton fans and how they were run..However the big problem I have is that the reason they gave for cancelling the game I simply don't believe.The club was being run by administrators at the time and there duty is to the creditors of the club.Not the fans,efl or anybody else.

  Bolton knew they wouldn't be playing this fixture days before because they couldn't afford to play it,it was a loss making game,I would be asking for proof the programmes were issued,the pies and burgers had been ordered etc etc..

   They left it till the last possible moment they could get away with it simply because the EFL wouldn't have agreed to it,so they waited until there was no possibility of it going ahead..They contrived the situation to suit their own needs

   I also don't buy this argument that it shouldn't matter as it was a past regime..Bolton have kept there club and their history (thankfully) but you cant cherrypick was parts you take with you..

[firestarter]

Bolton fans on Twitter are becoming just like Leeds fans now