wilsdenrover

With those 3 points turning out to be significant.

I’d be interested in how the L1 and L2 representatives voted.

The EFL board decided: https://www.efl.com/about-the-efl/efl-board/

Nope, the three Championship club representatives are from PNE, Norwich, and Middlesbrough.

There is, or certainly shouldn’t be, a default decision. The regulation isn’t x happens unless y it’s any of xyz are possible. As I said earlier, why have flexibility in the rules if you’re always going to make the same choice.

The decision may have done many things but it certainly hasn’t upheld the integrity of the competition. By agreeing to develop new guidance they’ve as good as a admitted the current position is unacceptable.

Majority not unanimous decision.

Pasha will now be checking whether an appeal involves an admin fee.

Confirmed where?

I imagine he’s made it up.

Re the bit in bold, yes - in my opinion, what the two clubs want should be irrelevant (so far as the EFL is concerned).

I would argue there is nothing unfair in continuing the match from where it left off. Ipswich will be in exactly the position they were, a goal down a man down having travelled from Suffolk that morning (I’m assuming that’s what they did and what they would do). We’d also be in the same position, one up a man up and ten(ish) minutes to see out. Of course there would be differences, for example they’d have time to plot how best to get something out of the game but equally we’d have time to plan against this. I can’t think (but maybe others can) of any advantage to one team that wouldn’t be offset by an advantage to the other.

Whilst I’m at it 😁 In my opinion the EFL shouldn’t have engaged in getting the opinions of the two clubs. They were probably hoping both would suggest the same thing but it’s beyond obvious they’d each favour the option which favoured them most. You’re the body in charge, just make your sodding decision.

Why have three options available to them but only ever use one of them. Ludicrous (them not you).

Apart from the duration, how is any of that different than a full replay? Even the fixture being split is still effectively true, 80 minutes which won’t count and 90 which will. I also fail to see how a full replay has any form of sporting integrity linked to it. It might be the easiest option for the EFL to take but let’s not pretend it’s the fairest one.

If I’m the EFL I’m making a decision without taking representations from either side. All that will happen now is they’ll be accused of listening to one side over the other.

If Pasha is thinking that way the list of why he should fuck off has just got even longer.

I’m also unsure why the obsession with having or creating a precedent is. As long as the EFL set out clearly what they took in account they’ll be able to justify different decisions in the future.

Thanks. It’s almost as if ‘journalists’ are picking and choosing which bits of info to share with us…

Why would playing a partial game cost more than playing a full game??

Called off for very different reasons and only stopped when home fans (with a very good intention) came onto and refused to leave the pitch.

Anyone else bored of waiting? Just make a decision and communicate it to us. I appear to have used up all of my patience on the Indian court system. 😁😁

Who thinks the EFL made their decision in five minutes but are delaying releasing it to make it seem like they’ve been considering alternatives?

Their U21s are playing in Chorley tonight (vs PNE).