Bolton - The game goes ahead

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Can Bolton appeal.?

If the only thing that changes, is awarding the game to us, with no further sanction to them, I think they would still be highly delighted with the outcome. That way they would have no further grounds for appeal.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Noblot.

When in a far, far worse hole in 1997/98, we completed some fixtures in Tier 4 by signing players for individual games from the Manchester Sunday League.

It is nonsense to say that you had no option of signing players.

The action of your then management in not doing that, and instead refusing to complete a fixture was a choice that they made. If the panel's decision from yesterday is implemented, your club has the opportunity to profit from that decision both in terms of the number of points (because you would be in a much better shape going into a game now than you were in August) and financially (because your gate receipts if the game is played now would be far higher than they would have been in August, and the difference would far outweigh yesterday's proposed wrist slap fine).

Meanwhile, DRFC is materially disadvantaged. The EFL fixtures determined that we should have been playing you in the circumstances that both clubs were in back in August. Through the arbitrary and unilateral decision of BWFC to fail to honour that fixture, we are going to be playing you in which the relative circumstances of the two clubs are utterly different.


That is a ridiculous state of affairs. No matter what the circumstances, no club can ever unilaterally choose to opt out of a fixture and end up coming out of the affair net positive and potentially impose a net negative on their opponent. Allow that precedent and the EFL management have totally lost control over future problems.

[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.

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.

Campbell, I’ve said quite clearly in here that the club, be that Parkinson or the Administrator, were wrong in what they did and we have to be punished. Personally I’d have had no problem with you getting the 3 points and a 1-0 win the same as Brentford but I think that would have opened the EFL liable to action by other Div1 clubs. The EFL outsourced to an independent committee and like the decision or not that should stand. I know you are miffed because you didn’t get chance to play our youth team and possibly get a big win but surely that’s actually being selfish. In reality the only way to make things absolutely fair is for the EFL to allow us to replay all the early games where teams gained from playing us but that’s hardly likely. Maybe like with Bury they should have not allowed us to start the season and postponed the games until the takeover was completed but that’s just “should have, might have, and didn’t happen. I don’t think the appeal will be successful so I think you need to accept it and hope you still win the game when we play.

[IDM]

I can only speak for myself but the issue isn’t that we missed the chance to give your young side a spanking, more that quite simply, Bolton broke the rules and forfeit the fixture..

You yourself say you would have accepted a 1-0 default victory to us.  I don’t however get the argument that other clubs would object?  This was a fixture between two clubs, one of which decided not to play so the other gets the win.  I would think the same regardless of which club that was, including our close rivals.

[Frankie Rennie]

I’m absolutely certain other clubs would object IDM especially promotion hopefuls. I fully agree Wanderers should be punished but not by giving Doncaster free points when the game could easily be replayed. It might seem unfair not to play us as we were but unless you cut the transfer window and stop clubs changing players after the season starts, that’s just how it is. Yes I consider the decision lenient but given everything else that has hit us I think we deserve a bit of relief.

[IDM]

With hindsight the EFL should have a forfeit = lose rule.

It’s really simple and should apply to any match, any competition and at any level.

Refuse to play, the opposition is granted a win by default.

Any further punishment for the club not playing is a different issue and mitigating factors may apply.

[silent majority]

I’m absolutely certain other clubs would object IDM especially promotion hopefuls. I fully agree Wanderers should be punished but not by giving Doncaster free points when the game could easily be replayed. It might seem unfair not to play us as we were but unless you cut the transfer window and stop clubs changing players after the season starts, that’s just how it is. Yes I consider the decision lenient but given everything else that has hit us I think we deserve a bit of relief.

Yes, other clubs would definitely object, it's the short-termism that most clubs aspire to and success at all costs that causes these issues.

What we also have to remember is that the EFL is essentially the 72 clubs that play in the competition, and those vested interests means they have to look outside that when trying to reach conclusions that may disadvantage certain clubs.

[IDM]

They may object SM but I’m sure they wouldn’t if it was their club who were on the other side of a forfeit fixture.!

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

Campbell, I’ve said quite clearly in here that the club, be that Parkinson or the Administrator, were wrong in what they did and we have to be punished. Personally I’d have had no problem with you getting the 3 points and a 1-0 win the same as Brentford but I think that would have opened the EFL liable to action by other Div1 clubs. The EFL outsourced to an independent committee and like the decision or not that should stand. I know you are miffed because you didn’t get chance to play our youth team and possibly get a big win but surely that’s actually being selfish. In reality the only way to make things absolutely fair is for the EFL to allow us to replay all the early games where teams gained from playing us but that’s hardly likely. Maybe like with Bury they should have not allowed us to start the season and postponed the games until the takeover was completed but that’s just “should have, might have, and didn’t happen. I don’t think the appeal will be successful so I think you need to accept it and hope you still win the game when we play.

No one objects to clubs improving their squads throughout the season, but they do object to clubs that refuse to play games before they improve them.

[the vicar]

And no they can't as they pleaded guilty, but why would they appeal when they have almost got away with a crime in football

[IDM]

And no they can't as they pleaded guilty, but why would they appeal when they have almost got away with a crime in football

Bolton may choose to “defend” the appeal that the EFL are making.

[Frankie Rennie]

Of course we’d appeal it if the decision was changed. Why give it to an independent body and then disagree with it unless your only intent is to punish hard in the first place. A penalty has been given but the EFL clearly don’t believe it’s harsh enough and now they intend to try and penalise us more. The EFL have been a disgrace the way they have treated Wanderers in the last two years and equally over the Doncaster situation. Basically they aren’t fit for purpose and this is just another example.

[Alan Southstand]

They can do what they want, but, we havn’t had our say in this yet!

I believe the Club do not agree at all with playing the fixture and why should they?

We’re doing things right and proper, unlike BWFC, and waiting our turn. This has a long way to run yet. I think this could go on beyond the end of the season.

[mushRTID]

I think the longer this runs the more anger will develop amongst the other clubs. Especially as the relegation and promotion races become clearer.

Nightmare for the EFL really. I hope we drag it out to be honest.

[adamtherover]

.......and now they intend to try and penalise us more.

Oh dear, still banging that drum our kid that you have actually been punished for your embarrassing behaviour in relation to adearing to efl rules?

You have manipulated the situation, blamed it on youngsters who would.given their high teeth to play another league game, and then are crying that you have been punished, when at the minute, if you win the game if it is played, you have actually come out of it unscathed. Your club is a sham and is disrespecting every other club in the EFL.

[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.

Campbell, I’ve said quite clearly in here that the club, be that Parkinson or the Administrator, were wrong in what they did and we have to be punished. Personally I’d have had no problem with you getting the 3 points and a 1-0 win the same as Brentford but I think that would have opened the EFL liable to action by other Div1 clubs. The EFL outsourced to an independent committee and like the decision or not that should stand. I know you are miffed because you didn’t get chance to play our youth team and possibly get a big win but surely that’s actually being selfish. In reality the only way to make things absolutely fair is for the EFL to allow us to replay all the early games where teams gained from playing us but that’s hardly likely. Maybe like with Bury they should have not allowed us to start the season and postponed the games until the takeover was completed but that’s just “should have, might have, and didn’t happen. I don’t think the appeal will be successful so I think you need to accept it and hope you still win the game when we play.

Frankie Rennie it’s Campsall not Campbell. Not that it’s important.

What is important is you are missing the point we are all trying to make, which is your club unilaterally cancelled not postponed the match.
The circumstances are irrelevant. I didn’t care if your team on 20/08/19 was made up of 11 18 year olds or it contained the 11 best players in League 1 it is irrelevant.

If you cancel a game without permission 28 hrs before kick off ( the hrs don’t matter ) then you forfeit the game. End of.  If a club can decide when it wishes to play and not when it is supposed to play we are going to get total chaos.
If your club does not get at least a 3 point deduction and a forfeit of the game, what is going to stop any club doing what yours did when they have a few injuries and would rather not play.

If you can’t see that the current decision will open up a massive can of worms going forward then quite frankly i despair.
At least the EFL can see the problem by lodging an appeal. Who they are appealing to though I don’t know.

What the EFL should have done is make the judgement themselves, why they went to a so called independent commission i don’t know. It’s back fired badly because the decision shows total incompetence and a complete lack of foresight.

[i_ateallthepies]

This does indeed look like having a long, long way to run yet.  Given the lamentable behaviour of BW, if the position of the two clubs was BW just sitting a point from safety with only our game left to play and a dead rubber for us, Rovers could call off the game at the eleventh hour and deny BW the chance of escape.

Karma.

[Canadian Rover]

Bolton showed a lack of class and respect.

Their fans continue to do so...

[silent majority]

Campsall,

The EFL is a membership organisation, and its members are the 72 football clubs. That's why they have to go to an independent commission so they can rule out biased and partisan decisions.

Just look at who sits on the EFL Board and ask yourself who would be able to deliver a decision that wouldn't impact on other clubs.

[Noblot]

Noblot.

When in a far, far worse hole in 1997/98, we completed some fixtures in Tier 4 by signing players for individual games from the Manchester Sunday League.

It is nonsense to say that you had no option of signing players.

The action of your then management in not doing that, and instead refusing to complete a fixture was a choice that they made. If the panel's decision from yesterday is implemented, your club has the opportunity to profit from that decision both in terms of the number of points (because you would be in a much better shape going into a game now than you were in August) and financially (because your gate receipts if the game is played now would be far higher than they would have been in August, and the difference would far outweigh yesterday's proposed wrist slap fine).

Meanwhile, DRFC is materially disadvantaged. The EFL fixtures determined that we should have been playing you in the circumstances that both clubs were in back in August. Through the arbitrary and unilateral decision of BWFC to fail to honour that fixture, we are going to be playing you in which the relative circumstances of the two clubs are utterly different.


That is a ridiculous state of affairs. No matter what the circumstances, no club can ever unilaterally choose to opt out of a fixture and end up coming out of the affair net positive and potentially impose a net negative on their opponent. Allow that precedent and the EFL management have totally lost control over future problems.

Much has changed in football since 1997, including the board of the EFL. What applied then doesn't necessarily apply now.

But anyway, there's no logic to us choosing not to sign players and instead postponing a match if it's to gain us an advantage because it would very likely, and probably still will, result in us receiving a points deduction. It would have the opposite effect.

[Noblot]

If you cancel a game without permission 28 hrs before kick off ( the hrs don’t matter ) then you forfeit the game. End of.

Whilst that might be your opinion, there's no regulation that states that. Which is the nub of the problem - there's no defined penalty.

[Campsall rover]

Campsall,

The EFL is a membership organisation, and its members are the 72 football clubs. That's why they have to go to an independent commission so they can rule out biased and partisan decisions.

Just look at who sits on the EFL Board and ask yourself who would be able to deliver a decision that wouldn't impact on other clubs.

Ok thanks SM.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Noblot.

When in a far, far worse hole in 1997/98, we completed some fixtures in Tier 4 by signing players for individual games from the Manchester Sunday League.

It is nonsense to say that you had no option of signing players.

The action of your then management in not doing that, and instead refusing to complete a fixture was a choice that they made. If the panel's decision from yesterday is implemented, your club has the opportunity to profit from that decision both in terms of the number of points (because you would be in a much better shape going into a game now than you were in August) and financially (because your gate receipts if the game is played now would be far higher than they would have been in August, and the difference would far outweigh yesterday's proposed wrist slap fine).

Meanwhile, DRFC is materially disadvantaged. The EFL fixtures determined that we should have been playing you in the circumstances that both clubs were in back in August. Through the arbitrary and unilateral decision of BWFC to fail to honour that fixture, we are going to be playing you in which the relative circumstances of the two clubs are utterly different.


That is a ridiculous state of affairs. No matter what the circumstances, no club can ever unilaterally choose to opt out of a fixture and end up coming out of the affair net positive and potentially impose a net negative on their opponent. Allow that precedent and the EFL management have totally lost control over future problems.

Much has changed in football since 1997, including the board of the EFL. What applied then doesn't necessarily apply now.

But anyway, there's no logic to us choosing not to sign players and instead postponing a match if it's to gain us an advantage because it would very likely, and probably still will, result in us receiving a points deduction. It would have the opposite effect.

Yes,but it HASN'T resulted in you being penalised has it?

I've given my two pennorth on what actually happened in August. To me it's as plain as day that your Administrator cancelled that match to up the ante, and make it clear that you were on the brink of becoming unviable as a football club.

If that interpretation is correct (and there's no other one that makes any sense) then that DID secure an advantage for your club.

The line about young players is, frankly, bullshit. As I say, you could have signed 3-4 useless fat f**kers from the amateur ranks as we did, and given your bairns a rest. There was no excuse whatsoever for not doing that.

That line about the bairns is cover for what was obviously really going on. It's no coincidence that within days of you cancelling the match, the whole issue of your ongoing existence was front and centre, and the takeover went through soon afterwards.

I feel for the problems you've had. As I'm sure you felt for us in 1997/98. But my support for you would be a lot stronger if you'd stop insulting our intelligence with this line about protecting the kids. We're a bit smarter than to fall for shite like that.

[Dagenham Rover]

I’m absolutely certain other clubs would object IDM especially promotion hopefuls. I fully agree Wanderers should be punished but not by giving Doncaster free points when the game could easily be replayed. It might seem unfair not to play us as we were but unless you cut the transfer window and stop clubs changing players after the season starts, that’s just how it is. Yes I consider the decision lenient but given everything else that has hit us I think we deserve a bit of relief.

Its irrelevant that the game could "easily be replayed" Bolton cancelled the game without permission full stop end off argument. As happens all the way at grass roots failure to fulfil a fixture points awarded to the opposition.  If there are any mitigating circumstances ie further points deductions suspended deductions  etc its sorted by the governing authority at a later date and tbh Bolton have no real mitiigateing  circumstances except perhaps not being able to afford back to back fixtures or as Bst says to up the ante  and  actually yet again as Bst says I think if you go back in history to the late 90's Doncaster are the wrong club to try and insult with bullshit about trying to cancel games

[DonnyBazR0ver]

The correct outcome is simple. However long it takes to deliver that outcome, so be it. It's funny how the most obvious and fair outcome has proven most difficult to find.

This has taken up far too much of everyone's time. The only ones who are really gaining from this are the legal people, pontificating, delaying, dithering about something that could have been done on the day Bolton took a decision not to fulfil a fixture.

[Noblot]

Noblot.

When in a far, far worse hole in 1997/98, we completed some fixtures in Tier 4 by signing players for individual games from the Manchester Sunday League.

It is nonsense to say that you had no option of signing players.

The action of your then management in not doing that, and instead refusing to complete a fixture was a choice that they made. If the panel's decision from yesterday is implemented, your club has the opportunity to profit from that decision both in terms of the number of points (because you would be in a much better shape going into a game now than you were in August) and financially (because your gate receipts if the game is played now would be far higher than they would have been in August, and the difference would far outweigh yesterday's proposed wrist slap fine).

Meanwhile, DRFC is materially disadvantaged. The EFL fixtures determined that we should have been playing you in the circumstances that both clubs were in back in August. Through the arbitrary and unilateral decision of BWFC to fail to honour that fixture, we are going to be playing you in which the relative circumstances of the two clubs are utterly different.


That is a ridiculous state of affairs. No matter what the circumstances, no club can ever unilaterally choose to opt out of a fixture and end up coming out of the affair net positive and potentially impose a net negative on their opponent. Allow that precedent and the EFL management have totally lost control over future problems.

Much has changed in football since 1997, including the board of the EFL. What applied then doesn't necessarily apply now.

But anyway, there's no logic to us choosing not to sign players and instead postponing a match if it's to gain us an advantage because it would very likely, and probably still will, result in us receiving a points deduction. It would have the opposite effect.

Yes,but it HASN'T resulted in you being penalised has it?

I've given my two pennorth on what actually happened in August. To me it's as plain as day that your Administrator cancelled that match to up the ante, and make it clear that you were on the brink of becoming unviable as a football club.

If that interpretation is correct (and there's no other one that makes any sense) then that DID secure an advantage for your club.

The line about young players is, frankly, bullshit. As I say, you could have signed 3-4 useless fat f**kers from the amateur ranks as we did, and given your bairns a rest. There was no excuse whatsoever for not doing that.

That line about the bairns is cover for what was obviously really going on. It's no coincidence that within days of you cancelling the match, the whole issue of your ongoing existence was front and centre, and the takeover went through soon afterwards.

I feel for the problems you've had. As I'm sure you felt for us in 1997/98. But my support for you would be a lot stronger if you'd stop insulting our intelligence with this line about protecting the kids. We're a bit smarter than to fall for shite like that.

There was always a very strong likelihood that it would've resulted in a points deduction, and in my view, it eventually will. And the advantage I was referring to was related to avoiding relegation, particularly as we've often been accused of cynically trying to avoid a certain defeat in order to play you with a stronger squad at a more convenient time.

It's certainly possible that the administrator thought the postponement would hasten a takeover, but given the way negotiations had been playing out I think it's unlikely. Even after the EFL issued the fourteen day notice of expulsion from the league and the administrator had issued a statement advising liquidation proceedings would begin, there was still a to and fro between interested parties. And the issue of our ongoing existence had been front and centre amongst supporters and stakeholders long before we were ever due to play your team.

Regardless, outwith all of that the argument put forward for postponing the fixture on the grounds of player welfare was a valid one in its own right. We weren't able to alleviate that problem by signing senior players because administration prevented us from doing so.

[IDM]

But that is all irrelevant to the argument from our perspective - why this situation arose is a fifwgnt issue, the simple fact being one club unanimously called off a scheduled fixture without having permission to do so.  Just that, nothing more and nothing less.. refuse to play = forfeit

[albie]

Noblot,

Administration does NOT stop you registering new players.
It is perfectly possible to register players without adding them to the list of outstanding liabilities.

The Administrator would be concerned to commit to new expenditure in an insolvent company.
Any potential resale would not be impacted by players signed as amateurs, or unpaid triallists.

By the end of the transfer window, BWFC will have had the chance to recruit a new first team.

Do you think BWFC should be allowed to select players signed after the original date for the fixture?

[albie]

I’m absolutely certain other clubs would object IDM especially promotion hopefuls. I fully agree Wanderers should be punished but not by giving Doncaster free points when the game could easily be replayed. It might seem unfair not to play us as we were but unless you cut the transfer window and stop clubs changing players after the season starts, that’s just how it is. Yes I consider the decision lenient but given everything else that has hit us I think we deserve a bit of relief.

Yes, other clubs would definitely object, it's the short-termism that most clubs aspire to and success at all costs that causes these issues.

What we also have to remember is that the EFL is essentially the 72 clubs that play in the competition, and those vested interests means they have to look outside that when trying to reach conclusions that may disadvantage certain clubs.

Yes, and that is why the partiality needs to be taken out of the picture.

Rather than go to an independent commission and then appeal the findings, the system should be well defined in terms of the regulations, and promptly and automatically enforced.

We are discussing this 3 months after the event, and pending an appeal into the findings. This alone is enough to show the system is not appropriate.

If the consequences were set out clearly before the offense, then there would be little point in playing the old soldier like Bolton. It would cut no ice.

Ombudsman with full defined powers, and the outcome could have been made the next day.
EFL processes are a bullshit charter IMO.

[Noblot]

Noblot,

Administration does NOT stop you registering new players.
It is perfectly possible to register players without adding them to the list of outstanding liabilities.

The Administrator would be concerned to commit to new expenditure in an insolvent company.
Any potential resale would not be impacted by players signed as amateurs, or unpaid triallists.

By the end of the transfer window, BWFC will have had the chance to recruit a new first team.

Do you think BWFC should be allowed to select players signed after the original date for the fixture?

It does if there's not enough money within the club to continue funding it for any longer than a very short period. And besides, the EFL had taken the decision not to allow us to register players whilst we were in administration (it's for that reason I mentioned above that what happened in 1997/98 doesn't necessarily mean the same has to happen today - so much of the EFL's regulations leave things purely down to the board of the day's discretion). As I've previously referred to, we agreeed a contract with Jack Hobbs but weren't allowed to register him or another other player until we'd exited administration. More can be read on this here - https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17822667.boltons-jack-hobbs-signed-club---isnt-allowed-play/

Beyond that, the EFL took the view that the players we had registered i.e. four senior professionals and the U23's/U18's/U16's was sufficient.

As for what should happen with the replayed fixture, I've got no strong opinions either way. There are a number of circumstances which would mean one team might be significantly strengthened by the time the re-arranged fixture takes place (a postponement due to a waterlogged pitch allowing a couple of key injured players to return to full fitness being one, a postponed match which then ends up beind replayed after an upcoming transfer window being another). And let's not forget, the transfer window extending into the season itself compromises the integrity of the league to an extent as clubs might play one team one week and then a significantly different one the next. But equally, the EFL might determine that in our case it's a matter of degree, and that because the changes were wholesale, the match should be replayed with the players we had available when it was first due to be played. Whatever they decide, I won't be losing any sleep over it.