DE.

Don't think he was a regular in the team we bought him from tbf. Probably because he isn't especially good.

Haven't turned up today. Still in with a chance of getting something as it's only 1-0, but not looking likely at present.

Why are we so reluctant to start Gudjohnsen? Is he yet another signing struggling for fitness? Ohashi will never be a lead striker. Not in the system Ismael wants to play, anyway. (If he scores in the next 1hr 45m I claim credit for reverse curse)

Does seem to suggest there is increasing paranoia and insecurity within certain people at the club. Waggott only sprung into action if there was unrest in the stands (who could forget the infamous impromptu fan group meeting) - he and Mowbray would lay down the occasional guilt trip and everything would settle down. I don't think Waggott gave the LT a second thought, because he knew as long as he had the fans and the owners onside he was set. The local press was just noise. The current regime don't seem to feel that same security.

Seeing them use official club statements like some kind of deranged social media feed to advance their feud with the LT is honestly embarrassing.

Put the shovel down lads. You've dug deep enough already.

Yep, since Waggott left there has been a lot of own goals from the club which I think he would have nixed. He would have been pragmatic enough to shoot this idea down, one imagines. He's been around long enough to know that you keep the local press onside and don't sweat the small stuff. It's a lesson those in charge would do well to learn swiftly. I just don't get what the catalyst is here. It's not like there's some kind of revolt going on in the stands at Ewood. The coalition has been quiet for a while now, although who knows if something is going on in the background there. There's been a few 'Pasha out' banners - have they really got to him so much that he's lashing out?

Even during the Kean days when the LT literally called for Kean to go, they weren't banned. That's the level of pettiness we're dealing with here. The club basically admitting that they want the LT to only report good things about them. Good on the paper for calling it out directly.

What was the social media post that caused this tantrum, out of curiosity?

I would only really accept the EFL's decision if it included a hefty fine to the club for failing to provide a reasonable playing surface. A financial penalty is the only way anyone at the club will take this problem seriously. A full replay with no other action, citing a precedent that technically doesn't exist as relates to our circumstances, is a pathetic, cowardly way out. No wonder the EFL is in the state it's in, if the decision makers are this lacking in any form of critical thinking.

Yes. As I said in my last post, they are as complicit as we are if they don't go any further than just ordering a replay.

I'm curious as to whether the same decision would have been made if we'd have been playing at Portman Road and the game had been abandoned in the same circumstances, albeit it would have had to have been for a different reason as Portman Road would likely have been able to withstand the rainfall. I think that's where any appeal will fall down. It was at our ground and it was Ewood that was deemed unplayable. A full replay is obviously not even close to the fairest decision, but I think if we appeal the EFL will simply point to our ground being inadequate and that will be that. Probably best to just move on and hope our players and management are doubly motivated to smash Ipswich in the replayed fixture.

Pretty sure if that happened we'd be considered to have forfeited the match rather than an abandonment 😅

The problems at Ewood are well known in regards to drainage. It's happened before so the EFL can't claim ignorance. If they opt to continue ignoring this problem then they are as complicit as the club is in hurting the integrity of the league by having a pitch that can't handle heavy rain and has significant risks of postponements and game abandonments in future. The club will only act if the EFL begin to apply financial pressure. Otherwise it certainly appears they couldn't care less about our fans, other fans, managers, players or the integrity of the league.

Having listened to Ismael's interview, he's being very cute with his words. Saying that he didn't explicitly agree to the abandonment because he wasn't asked, but not saying he disagreed with it either. His issue seemed to be more with the EFL statement than whether the pitch was unplayable or whether the match could continue.

If it is the case that Ismael did not agree to the match being abandoned, then I owe you an apology for my comments in that regard after the game. It'll be interesting to see if the EFL respond to that, because their statement was pretty clear in saying all parties agreed to the abandonment.

Lol, "there is widespread support for the idea among club bosses, Sky Sports News has been told", yeah, no shit. It makes the competition a bit of a joke though. Last season the team in 8th finished 22 points behind the team in 3rd, and 17 points ahead of the team in 22nd. The idea that it will lead to less dead rubbers is somewhat flawed in that it gives teams who are clearly going to finish between 3rd and 8th less reason to field full strength squads at the end of the season, particularly if they have little chance of getting automatics.

Can only assume, as with everything, there's a bureaucratic process to follow before the announcement, even if the end result is already known.

Their argument falls into the trap of absolutes being the only fair option. Unless all variables can be exactly as they were, it's unfair. Nothing can make it perfectly fair. There are solutions that are fairer than a full replay. Just because they don't 100% replicate the ending conditions doesn't mean they aren't fair enough in the circumstances.

Feels like I'm playing a game of whack-a-mole.

All clubs in the league sign up to the rules and laws as stated, so whilst they may be pissed off I don't see what grounds any of them would have to launch any kind of appeal. The precedent has been historically set quite clearly (and this is exactly why from the league's pov there should be a consistent approach). If clubs were against the rule as a whole there have been many years to protest against it. As far as I'm aware nobody has, although I'd be interested to see if there was a concerted effort from a group of clubs to change it.

It is pretty weird to have disciplinary action carried over from a game which technically is abandoned. With that said, if a player has been sent off for some kind of violent foul or assault it wouldn't be reasonable to forget that just because the game was abandoned. I assume that's where the logic stems from, although it is without any nuance or flexibility.

Oxford handily beating Bristol City 3-1 away yesterday just hammers home the point that you can take no result for granted in this league. Unless you're playing Sheffield United, obviously.

Fair enough, hard to tell these days with some people seeming to believe the EFL is intent on destroying us!

Apparently our case to the EFL is either for us to be awarded the win or play the final 10 minutes only. Makes sense I suppose, there's no reason the club should advocate for a full replay, although it's a bit cheeky to ask to be awarded the win when our pitch was the reason the game got abandoned in the first place. If you don't ask you don't get, though, so they probably figured it was worth a shot.