wilsdenrover

Given he’s now persona non grata he should have included the line ‘at date of publication, these funds do not appear to have been provided to the club’.

Chas & Dave - The Sideboard Song

Does the club have one of these?

East 17 - It’s Alright

That would have been even funnier if US weren’t on 4.5 pts. 😁

Button hasn’t moved, it’s just now impossible to see ‘til you press it…

If one of those players is banned for the replay based on accumulated yellows…

No lol. If mine and Rigger’s interpretation is right you can either: Get a 40% refund on the original match ticket but you’d then need to buy a ticket for the rearranged game or; You can get a full refund on the original match ticket but can’t then attend the rearranged game. Alternatively, Hasta is right and Rigger and I are talking nonsense. 😁😁

Them charging season ticket holders would be a breach of the season ticket terms and conditions. They might well still try it on though.

I presume because they want to attend the rearranged game. Does seem a bizarre condition though as how hard would it be to get the full refund and then have someone else get you a ticket to the second game?? The club could try to keep the money from the first game but I’m guessing the EFL wouldn’t be too impressed with their ticketing terms and conditions being broken.

6.4 mentions postponed too so abandoned must surely mean after kick off.

Speak up as a player get sold, speak up as a journalist get banned.

They’re likening the club to North Korea.

But, unless I’m reading it wrong, if you can’t attend the rearranged match you get a full refund of your original ticket (6.4 ii). Re your final sentence, the following (from season ticket terms and conditions) means it will be free):

Wonder no more…

I wonder if the club had demands which would’ve prevented this ban. If so, the LT should publish them.

I didn’t know the club still had values let alone ones which need protecting

I’m sure there would have been an outcry if they did something their rules don’t permit.

There’s a lot of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ in modern football. People going against what their eyes are telling them because the ‘right people’ are saying what they’re seeing is wonderful.

I’d say the only caveat to that is Ipswich could have added to their submission the fact the drainage issue is a known one which we’ve done nothing to resolve. Whether that would have changed the outcome, who knows, but it would certainly have added weight to their argument.

If they were honest, they’d answer ‘it depends which of the teams we were’ (as suggested in your opening sentence).

They won’t want to say that now in case it prejudices any appeal. They won’t want to say it later as it will mean spending money.

Tragic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5jye4v64no

If our ground is inadequate (and I’m not saying it isn’t) shouldn’t the EFL be insisting we remedy this?