RevidgeBlue

Well he learnt from the best albeit Waggott was more Arthur Daley than narcissist.

Errrrmmmmm............. Four defeats out of six. Horrendous stuff. Picking fights with the local press, likely to get sued by the kit supplier, staff both playing and non playing who can't wait to get away and leaving in droves. No replacement for Waggott as bad as he was. The Club is in its death throes. I'll be astounded if we dont go down this season.

Read the Club's latest statement.

Bit harsh on Wharton! Lol.

Wrexham/Derby 1-1 with 10 mins to go Brereton just equalised for Derby. O Brien scored for Wrexham, thats his 3rd this season apparently. Wonder what would have happened if he'd joined us when he should have done?

He probably hasnt had time to read it.

Someone from a West Ham podcast just said on Talksport that West Ham told Potter he'd be being replaced but wanted him to stay in charge for two tricky away games to give Nuno an easier start. Unsurprisingly Potter said no and opted to leave straightaway.

What on earth makes them think they have the right to pick the LT's reporters for them? Personally Im not a fan of Jackson's reporting myself, but this is totally unfair, his liveliehood is at risk. I really hope the LT dont cave in and tell the Club where to stick it and that they will choose their own staff thank you very much.

Can't really remember anything vaguely controversial from the Club's point of view that Jackson has ever written. Perhaps they didnt like his recent article about Friedel, the headline of which insinuated one of the reasons he left was that he foresaw future problems with the ownership of the Club. If the headline accurately represented what Friedel said, he certainly wasn't wrong!

Completely nonplussed by this news, I thought Jackson wrote the most sycophantic drivel imaginable anyway so God only knows what the Club were expecting. Don't like all this LT going on tour as guests of the Club type stuff - it's the job of the Club's PR department to provide the stuff about how wonderful they all are. It's the LT's job to remain independent and provide an objective and balanced view. I know the LT need the Rovers coverage but I hope they stick to their guns and don't cave in to blackmail from the Club. In the short term I imagine they'll gain a lot more goodwill and subscriptions if they take a step back and report fairly but impartially

Yep, ridiculous decision, and even more scandalous that 3 members of the panel were allowed to abstain. I hope we appeal on a point of principle, it might not make any difference to the actual outcome but the situation is completely untenable. As for any replay as Sir Alf said at the end of 90 mins in 1966 "You've beaten them once, just go out and do it again."

There you go trying to defend the indefensible again. Surely we should be judging our infrastructure against sides at a comparable level not bloody Fylde and Southport?

No, obviously any team is always going to lobby for whichever outcome suits them best. You can't blame Ipswich for that. However you'd hope the EFL blessed by absolute discretion within their guidelines would take on board the representations from each Club, but ultimately arrive at the fairest overall solution in any given case. Which obviously hasn't happened here. I bet if you sent a survey out to the 72 Championship Clubs asking a neutral question about what should happen in a hypothetical situation similar to Saturday's, not one would say there should be a full replay under completely different conditions to the remainder of the original game.

Exactly so. Despite the inherent unfairness of the ruling I was expecting it - what I wasn't expecting was for that unfairness to be compounded by the possibility the vote only went against us due to several panel members abstaining! Ludicrous! Given the owners seem to love a good Court case and their previous predilection for throwing away obscene amounts of money in legal fees on seemingly lost causes, now we have an arguable case I hope they go full frontal and appeal and as you say preface it with the threat of legal action as above. The EFL deserve for us to lose the replay and go down by less than three points and for Ipswich to be promoted by less than three points and for them to have the arse sued off them by both us and any other aggrieved Club.

I saw Herbie's reply before and was going to post exactly the same thing but you've beaten me to it! 🙂

Spot on.

Should there then not then be a rule that you can't be on the panel if the outcome affects a Club in your Division due to potential conflict of interest? You can't agree to go on a panel to decide something and then refuse to vote. Well, you can, but it shouldn't be allowed.

Plus the hearing itself was an obvious stitch up. Three out of the ten declined to vote.

I dont want to come over as the guy who's a bad loser but those who predicted we'd get shafted by the EFL were correct. How can you have a panel where 30% of them can't/won't vote? It was supposedly by majority which means that the voting must have been 6-1, 5-2 or 4-3 and which also means that unless the voting was 6-1 the 3 abstentions were crucial! If I were Rovers I'd be appealing as a ppint of principle and demanding the vote is reconvened in front of 10 members who are actually willing to cast a vote!

One thing is that the pressure has been completely taken off VI and the players this week due to all the talk being about the abandonment. Might help. Who knows?

I usually agree with most of what Simon Jordan says but he's been way off beam recently on Rovers with his views on the 3 stooges being requested to stay away and now this. If he thinks any game that doesn't make it to the final whistle is "not a completed fixture" and should be replayed in full, Im sure he'd be delighted if Palace had a game abandoned when they were 5 up with 10 mins to go and it had to be replayed in full.

Two separate aspects to this. In a sporting context Id like there to be a partial replay because thats the fairest outcome. If we get that, Id then like the EFL to come down hard on the Club in the hope it'll provoke us into doing something about it. As things stand If there are any matchdays with prolonged rain this winter it's going to be complete pot luck whether we can start/get through the game. It's completely unfair to fans of either side who have to travel any distance to be put in that situation. Are we going to have to start postponing games 24/48 hours before to be on the safe side if there's a bad forecast? It's not on. As I mentioned previously to me it's not that far removed from part of the ground being unsafe/unfit for use.

Exactly, Id be all over that if I were a lawyer for another Club which misses out as a result at the end of the season.

I think it shows exactly the opposite - just judge each case on its individual merits and act accordingly. Don't make the same decision in every single case where the punishment doesn't necessarily fit the crime. If you did set up a range of rules, there'd have to be a hell of a lot of them, covering different scorelines at every conceivable point/ numbers of players on each side/reasons for the abandonment etc etc

Being objective, that's not fair on Ipswich as they weren't reduced to 10 from the off originally. If you're going down that route I think you'd have to start 11 v 11 then reduce them to 10 at the same time as in the original game which seems unnecessarily convoluted. Much easier to follow the obvious solution of playing out the remainder of the game under as similar conditions to previously as possible.