All Activity

When I see some of the names on the EFL board I have no faith in them either: https://www.efl.com/about-the-efl/efl-board/

Yea it’s £100 per person travel for maximum 24 people. There’s then the same amount (and person limit) for hotels. The hotel one has conditions to do with travel time linked to it but I’m pretty certain Ipswich could claim this one too.

That is my expectation too.

Just to be clear I made that up 😁 I was just trying to show how easy it would be to get around the concern you raised. All you need is an Authority who wants its rules to be fit for purpose…

Which are that Ipswich can claim a maximum of about £4.8k did you say?

I fully expect the match to be replayed in full. I’d be very interested in a lawyer’s argument (and I’m sure they’d find one for the appropriate hourly fee…) as to how continuing from where the match was stopped would be unfair.

Ah - cheers!

One thing the EFL most definitely will want to avoid is lawyers becoming involved and their ruling (whatever it is) being challenged in some kind of court. Both clubs will present their case but this has the potential to run and run it the need arises given how open ended their regulations seem to be. I said in Saturday I have no faith in any current Rovers staff to present our case in a fit and proper manner.

If I was a Rovers I’d direct Ipswich to the EFL regulations re expenses.

‘Where the abandonment is caused by the behaviour of fans the Board will convene to determine whether the match will be deemed to be complete or is to be replayed in part or full…’

If I was Ipswich I'd be demanding we covered all expenses for them and their fans for the replay.

The regulation actually allows them to pretty one choose any conditions they wish. Full replay/part replay 11 vs 10/part replay 11 vs 11/result stands and so on and so on. As you say, if they aren’t going to make use of this, why not just have options based purely on absolute fact (minutes gone as you suggested, or combination of minutes gone and extent of any lead either team has established).

Someone quoted the customer charter earlier in the thread - half price i think was the stipulated condition if a game was abandoned (not postponed)

Presuming it will be replayed the club will be in a tough spot with regards to tickets, I can’t see them making it free for fans that had tickets as it would end up costing us but then the game was null and void. Wonder if there’s insurance that covers the club for the losses if they make it free? Presume Ipswich will make transport free

There appears to be complete flexibility in the rules to make any decision they see fit - allow the result to stand/ replay the game in full or in part/ under whatever conditions they see fit. Unfortunately (from our point of view in this case) in practice that absolute discretion rarely seems to be used and the tendency seems to be to award a full replay. There is a danger in making a hard and fast rule that a result stands after a certain time that in extreme circumstances fans could attempt to force a stoppage or teams could attempt to deliberately pick up cards to get a match abandoned. Although that said when I first started watching the game fifty odd years go I was under the definite impression that a result stood if a certain proportion of the match had been completed. The figure that sticks in my mind is two thirds. Could anyone of a similar vintage confirm whether or not this was ever the case or if I am imagining it?

Common sense dictates continuing the match from the position at which it was stopped. That part of the regulation I quoted is a classic ‘catch all’ phrase which allows the EFL to pretty much do as they please. Despite the flexibility they’ve built into the rules, they will of course almost certainly go for the easy option of having the match replayed in full.

The ridiculous part is that there is a choice given in the rules, either the result stands, or the game is is replayed in full Why isnt is just one or the other? or if they did want to have some nuance based on how far gone the game is, option one if the game is less than X minutes old, and option 2 if the game is more than X minutes old?

But taking it one step further should Greaves start and then go off at the time he was sent off? There are so many worms in this particular can that arguments could ensue for some time yet.

You know things are bad when the owners are blamed for bad weather 😂

Proof being we don’t deserve the Venkys.

As in life though, just because someone doesn't deserve something, doesn't mean they won't get it.

As you said it won’t happen but I’d say the following part of the relevant regulation could cover him not being allowed to play: ‘…on any terms and conditions the Board shall in their absolute discretion determine…’

In good form away from home so fairly confident. For some reason I like the look of the Charlton business with Knibbs, Apter, Kellman.

Literally said in my first post about it that AI can be incorrect.

I think it works both ways but you bring up a valid point. Watford were without arguably their best player against us recently after he was sent off late on in a match against QPR. It could be argued that QPR didn't really gain but Watfords next three opponents did. Natural justice would mean that Greaves shouldn't play against us when the game is replayed but I can't see that happening as I don't think there is anything in the FA's regulations that cover this (to be fair the circumstances are extremely rare). He will miss the next Ipswich match against Portsmouth on Saturday and his punishment deemed to have been served.