or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 45 comments are related to an article called:

DPL vs Fleetwood

Page 2 of 2

posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

Donaldo, I had logging-in problems over the summer. Being a Mac user, I normally use Safari, and all of a sudden it would not log-in, just kept asking me to sign-up for the service! I tried Explorer with the same result, and so I contacted the iFollow provider. They suggested I try Google Chrome with no explanation of why Safari and Explorer would not work. Being no fan of anything to do with Google other than using Google Maps, I was reluctant to use Chrome. However, wanting to watch the upcoming season I down-loaded Chrome and it worked.

I'll contact the Rovers' media got about my problems.

posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

One of my browsers is Chrome which recently has not worked very well if at all. Safari seems to provide better quality video on my iPad when I can get it!

Nookie: I did not fully grasp the specifics of the postponement, so I now know what you were driving at. The sort of excuse put forward is rather typical of modern thinking. I always wonder how modern footballers would cope with the life of a professional tennis player!

posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

Joke of a club. how can they just decide they want to call the game off without consulting both us and the efl? Should be given a 3-0 win and 3 points but that won't compensate people who have paid train tickets or taken a day off work!

posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

With no money to pay a fine, there are two obvious options. 1. Deduct 3 more points; 2. Fine them.

1 would surely be favourite since the Administrator is in control of the funds.

Sadly neither does DRFC any good.

posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

We were in a similar position 97/98 I think. Requested a postponement against Norwich. But we played!

posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/norwich/9404364.stm

posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

97/98 was the year we got stuffed every week and had to bring Sunday league players into the side so we could field a team.
No one considered letting us postpone a game and our circumstances were probably worse than Bolton’s.
The Norwich game was much later.

posted 4 weeks ago

Interesting comments from the past - I well remember the 97/98 debacle, but had forgotten about the Norwich situation that was somewhat different.

The Bolton situation is very interesting, especially what the EFL will do.Obviously if they go away, all points earned will be cancelled, but if they survive with a stronger team, how do you justify Tranmere's 5-0 win?
Another interesting question, is if either Bury or Bolton are kicked-out of the EFL, how many other teams get relegated?

posted 4 weeks ago

How the mighty have fallen.
I remember the second game at the Keepmoat in the FA cup when their substitute was the multi million pound Anelka.

posted 4 weeks ago

Norwich game 2011. Getting confused in my old age. The EFL have made a complete hash of the situation. They havent even resolved the issue of Bolton's postponed game from last year. Letting a club start the season in Administration is a complete farce.

posted 4 weeks ago

They did resolve the game from last season.
Brentford were awarded a 1-0 win.

posted 4 weeks ago

Its the Bolton sanction for the Brentford game that has still to be resolved I understand. So in that case the EFL set a precedent and so shouldn't Rovers be awarded the game 1-0?

posted 4 weeks ago

Though in that case there wasnt time to replay it before the end of the season. Interesting to see what and when the EFL does.

posted 4 weeks ago

Bolton have an active JA606! So you can read what their fans think about their current predicament.

posted 4 weeks ago

I read some twitter stuff this morning and some of them were claiming that they had 9 teenagers in the team last Saturday.
Just a pack of lies.

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

Hound: having referred to the OS of BWFC it is indeed untrue that there were as many as 9. More than half were, but that is simply a cross-section of their playing staff.

Having taken their place in the league with a staff heavily weighted towards youthful players they well knew the shape the fixtures would take with matches twice a week at this stage of the season. This was the Contract and they knew that they had to make do with those players who were already on their books, having been prohibited from registering new players by the EFL.

Their defence may well amount to just this, but they went into the season with their eyes open and it seems wrong to me that they will be given a concession unavailable to the other clubs in the League.

If clubs are permitted to judge whether they are able to fulfil their fixtures based on the assumed age-related resilience of the team they are able to put out, then clubs with sides with an average age of over 30 could well justify not playing more than once a week.

Health epidemics and major injury crises have seemingly had favourable consideration in very recent years probably because such events are out of the control of the affected clubs.

Rovers, in common with all the other clubs whose seasons have or will be disrupted by the misdemeanours of Bolton and Bury will (if they are allowed to continue) have to fit in an extra match or matches at such a time inconvenient for both club and fans meaning a potential disadvantage to the innocent parties.

The EFL statement uses rather empathetic words like “acutely aware” in its statement and gives no indication of what will happen next, if anything. Rovers will doubtless make representations which will force them into a judgment. Bury might feel that at this stage they sound more sympathetic than they are to them.

It illustrates the problem with any Sentence that is suspended and poses the question “When is a punishment not a punishment?” The fact is that the risk of consequence falls on everyone else with whom the offender has contact.

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

It sems to me under most interpretations of EFL and FIFA rules that Bolton effectively forfeited the game. Therefore Rovers should be awarded the points. FIFA rules say 3-0 but who can be sure what the EFL rules are , what they will do and when!

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

We now have a statement from the EFL which is aimed at adverse comment by the managers of Fleetwood and Sunderland following the Bolton postponement:

"... a spokesperson for the EFL said: "While accepting everyone is entitled to their opinion, we have repeatedly stated that the integrity of the league competition remains of paramount importance and any club that doesn't fulfil a fixture will face a sporting sanction.

- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49420909

posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago

I keep hearing and reading rubbish regarding the child welfare of the players who have played recently however only 2 lads who played against Tranmere were under adult age 17. Even I will go on to say they had 4 experienced players in that team also. I also noticed Parkinson was the forefront behind the postponement but he's since resigned from the club.

posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago

Agreed azza about the young lads.
On the Bolton 606 page though I noticed that a couple of their posters were claiming that nine of the team that started at Tranmere were “kids”.

Page 2 of 2

Sign in if you want to comment