Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Where fellow sufferers gather to share the pain, longing and unrequited transfer requests that make being a Wanderer what it is...

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25490
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:19 pm

Hoboh wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:14 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:07 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:02 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:33 am
DJBlu wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:54 am
Marc Iles reporting that the club are playing top trumps will rules. According to Premier League rules the U23s and U18s can only be used for EFL games once every 7 days.

We're going to get a hammering over this.
Surely the rules are there for U23 & U18 games, not players. First team games don't have the same caveats. If a player is under 23 and plays a First Team game then he abides by first team rules, I would have thought.
In (modern) youth football, the rules are applied on birthdate, not level; so a 10-year-old prodigy playing U13 would have to abide by the rules set for his/her birthdate range, not league level. (Actually, many county FAs ban the "playing up" thing: and players who are *that* good are normally swallowed into academies anyway.)

Obviously the same might not apply once transitioned to senior level but the FA (under whose aegis the entire country still is, despite its historical enmity with the League and recent near-parricide by its bastard child the PL) have strict rules on development, so it's a good card to play. Certainly a better strategy than not telling Donny.
Worth noting that majority of these kids (all of them) are not on pro contracts. But on scholarly or development contracts.

I believe that for some were this in "term time" there are even rules about how often they can feature - due to their educational development/qualifications - I think parents would have to sign waivers for some of them. And remember they aren't 16 year old premiership starlets earning a small fortune. They are on buttons and likely some of them won't have a career in the game.
If they win a few games, make it or not in football, they will hold a place in folklore of Bolton and even wider in football terms.

I think the real wider question is, do we need smaller leagues in football and less spurious cup games? Perhaps a league of no more than 14 clubs is the way forward and limit matches to one a week.
I think they are already in folklore for the Coventry game.

You have to concede that whilst forgoing education for a player breaking through into the top flight and the money that brings is eminently sensible - it might be a different call for a lad sitting on the bench getting £100 a week to miss their a-levels or whatever it is they are doing for that reason.

The truth is the EFL dug themselves a huge hole by allowing the first game to go ahead believing the deal was close without really understanding what the blockage was - because if they knew the full extent of that I don't think they'd have allowed that game to take place. And the situation would now have been resolved already one way or another.

Allowing us to start the season has been a huge dropped bollock by the EFL.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16751
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:25 pm

Hoboh wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:14 pm
I think the real wider question is, do we need smaller leagues in football and less spurious cup games? Perhaps a league of no more than 14 clubs is the way forward and limit matches to one a week.
#finance.

The Premier League came into being because (apart from the big clubs wanting to keep the money) the FA suggested a maximum 18-club top flight, to "help England". The top flight was subsequently reduced from 22 to 20 teams but the clubs, having wrestled control from the stuffed shirts, have never seriously considered losing another two lucrative home games per season.

Same at lower level, where finances are even more precarious. Losing 10 of their 23 home games would push a lot of clubs over the edge.

The same applies with winter breaks: clubs suddenly find they have the urgent need to stage a friendly or two in Kuala Lumpur.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12595
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Hoboh » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:29 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:19 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:14 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:07 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:02 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:33 am
DJBlu wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:54 am
Marc Iles reporting that the club are playing top trumps will rules. According to Premier League rules the U23s and U18s can only be used for EFL games once every 7 days.

We're going to get a hammering over this.
Surely the rules are there for U23 & U18 games, not players. First team games don't have the same caveats. If a player is under 23 and plays a First Team game then he abides by first team rules, I would have thought.
In (modern) youth football, the rules are applied on birthdate, not level; so a 10-year-old prodigy playing U13 would have to abide by the rules set for his/her birthdate range, not league level. (Actually, many county FAs ban the "playing up" thing: and players who are *that* good are normally swallowed into academies anyway.)

Obviously the same might not apply once transitioned to senior level but the FA (under whose aegis the entire country still is, despite its historical enmity with the League and recent near-parricide by its bastard child the PL) have strict rules on development, so it's a good card to play. Certainly a better strategy than not telling Donny.
Worth noting that majority of these kids (all of them) are not on pro contracts. But on scholarly or development contracts.

I believe that for some were this in "term time" there are even rules about how often they can feature - due to their educational development/qualifications - I think parents would have to sign waivers for some of them. And remember they aren't 16 year old premiership starlets earning a small fortune. They are on buttons and likely some of them won't have a career in the game.
If they win a few games, make it or not in football, they will hold a place in folklore of Bolton and even wider in football terms.

I think the real wider question is, do we need smaller leagues in football and less spurious cup games? Perhaps a league of no more than 14 clubs is the way forward and limit matches to one a week.
I think they are already in folklore for the Coventry game.

You have to concede that whilst forgoing education for a player breaking through into the top flight and the money that brings is eminently sensible - it might be a different call for a lad sitting on the bench getting £100 a week to miss their a-levels or whatever it is they are doing for that reason.

The truth is the EFL dug themselves a huge hole by allowing the first game to go ahead believing the deal was close without really understanding what the blockage was - because if they knew the full extent of that I don't think they'd have allowed that game to take place. And the situation would now have been resolved already one way or another.

Allowing us to start the season has been a huge dropped bollock by the EFL.
Absolutely and (yet again :hang: ) I fully agree with your post, the long term for all football surely must be smaller leagues and less games to allow a quicker but still well managed youth development.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12595
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Hoboh » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:35 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:25 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:14 pm
I think the real wider question is, do we need smaller leagues in football and less spurious cup games? Perhaps a league of no more than 14 clubs is the way forward and limit matches to one a week.
#finance.

The Premier League came into being because (apart from the big clubs wanting to keep the money) the FA suggested a maximum 18-club top flight, to "help England". The top flight was subsequently reduced from 22 to 20 teams but the clubs, having wrestled control from the stuffed shirts, have never seriously considered losing another two lucrative home games per season.

Same at lower level, where finances are even more precarious. Losing 10 of their 23 home games would push a lot of clubs over the edge.

The same applies with winter breaks: clubs suddenly find they have the urgent need to stage a friendly or two in Kuala Lumpur.
Finance is one thing, more so at the top level but unless something radical happens lower down the leagues there will be more cases like ours, lets face facts, down at this level there should be no one on some of the salaries some players are on and it's wages of players that have long lasting harmful effects on clubs, a salary cap would mitigate the need for those "extra" games.

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18439
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:38 pm

Hoboh wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:35 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:25 pm
Hoboh wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:14 pm
I think the real wider question is, do we need smaller leagues in football and less spurious cup games? Perhaps a league of no more than 14 clubs is the way forward and limit matches to one a week.
#finance.

The Premier League came into being because (apart from the big clubs wanting to keep the money) the FA suggested a maximum 18-club top flight, to "help England". The top flight was subsequently reduced from 22 to 20 teams but the clubs, having wrestled control from the stuffed shirts, have never seriously considered losing another two lucrative home games per season.

Same at lower level, where finances are even more precarious. Losing 10 of their 23 home games would push a lot of clubs over the edge.

The same applies with winter breaks: clubs suddenly find they have the urgent need to stage a friendly or two in Kuala Lumpur.
Finance is one thing, more so at the top level but unless something radical happens lower down the leagues there will be more cases like ours, lets face facts, down at this level there should be no one on some of the salaries some players are on and it's wages of players that have long lasting harmful effects on clubs, a salary cap would mitigate the need for those "extra" games.
Salary caps don't work for all sorts of reasons...
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16751
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:41 pm

The Football League have been saying for decades - going back to the 60s - that there will be, in the memorable phrase of one president (whose name I've forgotten), "Natural wastage" among the clubs. Our country almost certainly has the highest proportion of professional clubs per capita of anywhere in the world (I guess barring tiny outliers like Monaco or whatever). The higher stakes we're all playing with just makes it more likely that someone will be ejected from the casino sooner or later.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16751
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:42 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:19 pm
Allowing us to start the season has been a huge dropped bollock by the EFL.
To be clear, what should they have done instead? Remember that, as I posted on an earlier thread, around a dozen clubs this century have started seasons in admin.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25490
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:53 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:42 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:19 pm
Allowing us to start the season has been a huge dropped bollock by the EFL.
To be clear, what should they have done instead? Remember that, as I posted on an earlier thread, around a dozen clubs this century have started seasons in admin.
They allowed us to start on the basis that the deal was "close". Starting a season in admin isn't an issue other than for the twitterati who do not understand the difference between being in admin but the administrators being able to cut costs to get the business to a solvent level and being in admin and being insolvent.

We are the latter. And so given the EFL decision to let us start the season was based on fact they approved FV plan to run the club "solvently" as in fund the gap - and they were suitably satisfied that the deal was happening - its clear they dropped a huge bollock. Bury weren't allowed to start because the EFL were concerned they hadn't proven the funding required to finish.

In our case the funding was proven but was contingent on parties signing the deal - and that hasn't happened yet.

Playing games has been a) worse for the league integrity and b) allowed those parties involved in the deal time to kick the can down the road and c) exposed younger players to injuries.

Its clear a massive bollock was dropped. The EFL should have perhaps put pressure on and said "you can only start the season with all contracts signed". They did exactly the same with Bury - you might have agreed a CVA but we want to see the money.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16751
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:57 pm

So, to be concise, you think they should have done to us what they've done to Bury?

Not necessarily arguing. It's just my natural inclination, when someone demands change, to ask "What to?"

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25490
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:10 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:57 pm
So, to be concise, you think they should have done to us what they've done to Bury?

Not necessarily arguing. It's just my natural inclination, when someone demands change, to ask "What to?"
Because it would have been fairer. The only reason they allowed it was down to FV who did not own us and until the creditors sign off on the deals will not own us. The EFL were assured it was close - yet it didn't happen.

Secondly it would have prevented the various parties in the deal buggering about - they would have known a decision was required imminently. It would have in that case been resolved by now.

Thirdly it would have protected the kids from injury.

Now you have a worse position we were allowed to start but clearly playing on is untenable until the situation is resolved but in the meantime its become even more complex.

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18439
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:11 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:57 pm
So, to be concise, you think they should have done to us what they've done to Bury?

Not necessarily arguing. It's just my natural inclination, when someone demands change, to ask "What to?"
I think DSB, not to put too fine a point on it, they will anyway. Do to us what they are about to do to Bury. The only difference will be the inevitable expungement of gained points for our opposition and the possible legal action that might flow therefrom.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2692
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by jimbo » Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:16 pm

Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:11 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:57 pm
So, to be concise, you think they should have done to us what they've done to Bury?

Not necessarily arguing. It's just my natural inclination, when someone demands change, to ask "What to?"
I think DSB, not to put too fine a point on it, they will anyway. Do to us what they are about to do to Bury. The only difference will be the inevitable expungement of gained points for our opposition and the possible legal action that might flow therefrom.
So if we get liquidated, Tranmere will have their 5-0 win wiped from the record books? Every cloud.......

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18439
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:17 pm

jimbo wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:16 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:11 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:57 pm
So, to be concise, you think they should have done to us what they've done to Bury?

Not necessarily arguing. It's just my natural inclination, when someone demands change, to ask "What to?"
I think DSB, not to put too fine a point on it, they will anyway. Do to us what they are about to do to Bury. The only difference will be the inevitable expungement of gained points for our opposition and the possible legal action that might flow therefrom.
So if we get liquidated, Tranmere will have their 5-0 win wiped from the record books? Every cloud.......
:)
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18439
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:23 pm

And this is officially a pathetic match thread. The last time we had one and didn't play it ran to 6 (six) pages...
I blame the youth of today :roll:
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

Harry Genshaw
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6937
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: Half dead in Panama

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Harry Genshaw » Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:33 pm

jimbo wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:16 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:11 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:57 pm
So, to be concise, you think they should have done to us what they've done to Bury?

Not necessarily arguing. It's just my natural inclination, when someone demands change, to ask "What to?"
I think DSB, not to put too fine a point on it, they will anyway. Do to us what they are about to do to Bury. The only difference will be the inevitable expungement of gained points for our opposition and the possible legal action that might flow therefrom.
So if we get liquidated, Tranmere will have their 5-0 win wiped from the record books? Every cloud.......
One regular poster on here has already raised the prospect of him getting his ticket money for last Saturday back off me.

To paraphrase Charlton Heston
"Out of my cold dead hands"
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"

Burnden Paddock
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2812
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:14 pm
Location: Bury

Re: Puppy Love... (H) v Donny. 8pm Tues 20/Aug/2019 : CANCELLED

Post by Burnden Paddock » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:09 pm

Harry Genshaw wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:33 pm
jimbo wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:16 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:11 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:57 pm
So, to be concise, you think they should have done to us what they've done to Bury?

Not necessarily arguing. It's just my natural inclination, when someone demands change, to ask "What to?"
I think DSB, not to put too fine a point on it, they will anyway. Do to us what they are about to do to Bury. The only difference will be the inevitable expungement of gained points for our opposition and the possible legal action that might flow therefrom.
So if we get liquidated, Tranmere will have their 5-0 win wiped from the record books? Every cloud.......
One regular poster on here has already raised the prospect of him getting his ticket money for last Saturday back off me.

To paraphrase Charlton Heston
"Out of my cold dead hands"
You cheeky tw@t! :lol:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Jim_McDonuts and 18 guests