wilsdenrover

We have no legal obligation to any other club re our drainage facilities so it certainly wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be us.

I agree (maybe keep the Norwich one…) but I bet that would get the lawyers interested. The regulation says the Board decides and the Board has an exact definition set out for it.

Re the bit I’ve emboldened - I’d look at the balance of probabilities. I have no issue with the absolute discretion of the regulation as it is written. My issue is with the EFLs apparent reluctance to ever use this discretion. Which is pretty much what you’ve just said 😁

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.

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…

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.

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…’

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).

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.

Proof being we don’t deserve the Venkys.

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…’

The illogical part is the club transgressed against doesn’t get the chance to benefit from their opponents being down to 10 (if the match is replayed in full 11 vs 11) but another club still gets the benefit of that player being suspended. If the authorities think punishments should remain then, in my opinion, so should everything else (score, time remaining etc etc). It really shouldn’t be a pick and choose situation.

We could try the magnanimous approach… ’The abandonment removed Ipswich’s chance to rescue a point in the final ten minutes with only ten men. We are happy for them to be afforded this opportunity at a date of your choosing’.

No ‘back handers’?

Max hotel claim is £100 per person (max 24 people) Same for travel.

Maximum claim allowed by Ipswich would be £4,800. Is Pasha that tight…

Here’s the rule:

It is permitted but I doubt that will be their ruling.

From EFL website:

The rules say absolutely nothing about the 75th minute (or any other specific minute) being relevant to the EFLs decision.

Most likely but not certainly.

A Match is 90 minutes so I don’t think we should be awarded the win. The time left, the score and them being down to ten men means I don’t think a full replay is appropriate either. That leaves a partial replay as the fairest outcome, in my opinion of course.