Latest news:

EFL statement - Palios proposal sunk..
Discussion started by Aldo'smuzzy (IP Logged), 29 May, 2020 10:37
Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
29 May, 2020 10:37
...unless we wish to table it ourselves by June 2.

In any case the EFL is pushing ahead with its original proposed rule change and will put it (together with any alternative proposals it receives by June 2) to the vote at a meeting of EFL clubs on June 8.

Details here: [www.efl.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29/05/2020 10:42 by Aldo'smuzzy.

Borough Roaderd
Tranmere69
29 May, 2020 11:44
Hope MP goes ahead and submits it anyway.

Bored rover
Bored rover
29 May, 2020 11:54
Seems to be basically be saying the final decision is down to the stake holders and clubs may submit any alternative proposal which to be voted considered by the stake holders on the 8th so long as received by 2nd. Basically saying the EFL preferred option remains but it’s up to the clubs. So good news as I see it, can’t see why any club would vote against any proposal that doesn’t harm them other than through being vindictive.

Zint
Zint
29 May, 2020 13:03
Rather than look at it from a Tranmere perspective could we consider from an EFL perspective?

They could be between a rock and a hard place. If they had’ve accepted Mark’s proposals that may well have been seen as favouritism. What they have said instead is that clubs are welcome to come up with alternative proposals and put them to a vote. In the circumstances it’s the best we could have hoped for at the moment. It may also mean that their 75% majority becomes difficult to achieve as clubs become divided.

DevonExile
DevonExile
29 May, 2020 13:40
Quote:
Bored rover
Seems to be basically be saying the final decision is down to the stake holders and clubs may submit any alternative proposal which to be voted considered by the stake holders on the 8th so long as received by 2nd. Basically saying the EFL preferred option remains but it’s up to the clubs. So good news as I see it, can’t see why any club would vote against any proposal that doesn’t harm them other than through being vindictive.

Yes but the same applies to the EFL proposals Well over 75 % of clubs are not harmed by the preferred option so it is hard to see why any,but a few clubs, would risk splitting the vote by backing a different option. By allowing the MP proposal it reduces the chance of a legal challenge with little real prospect that clubs will risk an outcome that just extends uncertainty

stek26
stek26
29 May, 2020 13:44
A little confused.......

if our proposal is more favourable to the majority of clubs, than the EFL framework, does that then mean it would replace the EFL framework for regulation change?

Or does the EFL have to agree with our proposal and implement it, as their own framework before clubs can definitively vote on it?

Can our proposal (and other clubs proposals) go to a vote against the EFL proposal/framework?

Reading the statement sounds like the EFL have read it, thought good idea but it is not their idea so they won’t support it, we will keep our original idea!

Also thought it was a little dig at us referencing the proposal being made public by Mark, I’d guess they weren’t happy with that.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
29 May, 2020 14:12
The mountain just got a lot bigger and a lot steeper.

We've failed to influence the EFL board so we either now oppose them or go home.

It's all about politics from now on. And the EFL has many more political levers at its disposal than we do. Unless there's a deeper discontent amongst clubs with the EFL board, it's hard to see why the many clubs who'd be no better or worse under either proposal would choose to rebel against the EFL to back us. Yet we'd need their votes.

Palios will be able to assess the political landscape as well as anyone so, if we do decide to carry on, I'd like to think there's still a chance of success. But if we do so just to appease our own supporters then I'd rather we didn't bother.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
29 May, 2020 14:23
Quote:
stek26
A little confused.......
if our proposal is more favourable to the majority of clubs, than the EFL framework, does that then mean it would replace the EFL framework for regulation change?

Or does the EFL have to agree with our proposal and implement it, as their own framework before clubs can definitively vote on it?

Can our proposal (and other clubs proposals) go to a vote against the EFL proposal/framework?
Maybe helpful to take the questions in reverse order:
3) Yes. Any such proposal needs to be submitted to EFL by June 2 if it's to get on the ballot paper.
2) No.
1) If it wins the ballot, yes.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
29 May, 2020 15:10
Parry, yet again.
Again it comes down to what is being sent down to League 1 from above: 3, 2 ,1 or no teams.
And what is being sent down from League 2.



TRFC is #8 on Wirral's new Viking Trail
[www.facebook.com] 👊👊

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
29 May, 2020 15:17
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
The mountain just got a lot bigger and a lot steeper.
We've failed to influence the EFL board so we either now oppose them or go home.

It's all about politics from now on. And the EFL has many more political levers at its disposal than we do. Unless there's a deeper discontent amongst clubs with the EFL board, it's hard to see why the many clubs who'd be no better or worse under either proposal would choose to rebel against the EFL to back us. Yet we'd need their votes.

Palios will be able to assess the political landscape as well as anyone so, if we do decide to carry on, I'd like to think there's still a chance of success. But if we do so just to appease our own supporters then I'd rather we didn't bother.

.. or best focusing on getting the legal challenge ready in anticipation.

Worth remembering though that League 2 voted to save Stevenage, against Parry's wishes.

Zint
Zint
29 May, 2020 15:31
Standing Orders must allow for a motion to be put forward that the motion not be put’. It could be argued that the proposals as they stand are manifestly unfair and disproportionately affect the income and finances of a number of teams.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
29 May, 2020 15:35
I didn't know Parry had expressed any wishes about L2 relegation but the EFL board obviously wants to keep it. I can't see many L2 clubs digging their heels in over that.

I read that Parry was actually in favour of extended playoffs but, again, the EFL board clearly aren't.

I think legal action would be a dead duck, and I'm guessing that'd be the case regardless of whether we do or don't put forward an alternative proposal to be voted upon.

stek26
stek26
29 May, 2020 18:39
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Quote:
stek26
A little confused.......
if our proposal is more favourable to the majority of clubs, than the EFL framework, does that then mean it would replace the EFL framework for regulation change?

Or does the EFL have to agree with our proposal and implement it, as their own framework before clubs can definitively vote on it?

Can our proposal (and other clubs proposals) go to a vote against the EFL proposal/framework?

Maybe helpful to take the questions in reverse order:
3) Yes. Any such proposal needs to be submitted to EFL by June 2 if it's to get on the ballot paper.
2) No.
1) If it wins the ballot, yes.


Thanks Aldo.

I was hopeful that our proposal would be more favourable to more clubs (us, teams just outside the playoffs & teams flirting in & around relegation places), than the EFL proposed framework.

However, I have just had a look to see who the EFL board comprise of, and out of the 9 members, 6 are club representatives from across the 3 leagues.
The 2 reps from League 1 are Fleetwood Town Chief Executive, Steven Curwood, and Burton Albion’s Non-Executive Director, Jez Moxey.
2 members who the EFLs proposal either favour them (Fleetwood) or doesn’t really affect
(Burton).
[www.efl.com]

Surprised that these executives from clubs within the EFL would unanimously vote to keep their framework, knowing that is detrimental to some clubs. There must be some hidden agenda.

Interested to see how the vote go’s especially if our proposal is on the ballot.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
29 May, 2020 19:05
What we need to do as I've said on another thread is to make it widely known through the media next weekend - just before the vote - that we are donating the Crowd Fund to Food Parcels - which is what we are doing - if legal action is not necessary.
Lets see how they vote then.

Zint
Zint
29 May, 2020 22:18
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
What we need to do as I've said on another thread is to make it widely known through the media next weekend - just before the vote - that we are donating the Crowd Fund to Food Parcels - which is what we are doing - if legal action is not necessary.
Lets see how they vote then.

You’ve lost me. We raise £12K and at the point we need it we give it away? 🤷‍♂️ Crazy.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
29 May, 2020 22:57
Quote:
Zint
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
What we need to do as I've said on another thread is to make it widely known through the media next weekend - just before the vote - that we are donating the Crowd Fund to Food Parcels - which is what we are doing - if legal action is not necessary.
Lets see how they vote then.

You’ve lost me. We raise £12K and at the point we need it we give it away? 🤷‍♂️ Crazy.

The key part Zint is "if legal action is not necessary"
So its right guys - you vote to keep us in League One, legal action is not necessary, so the crowd fund can go to food parcels.
or ... - you vote to demote us, we challenge you, use the crowd fund money .. and no food parcels.

rossb07
rossb07
30 May, 2020 00:45
I’ll take an easy bet as to which side they’ll take with that political view.

I’d imagine Mark would take the same stance too if he’s in any way involved with said funds.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
30 May, 2020 07:42
Quote:
rossb07
I’ll take an easy bet as to which side they’ll take with that political view.
I’d imagine Mark would take the same stance too if he’s in any way involved with said funds.

I would hopes so Rosb07. Vote us down and you are depriving the needy.

Crowdfund may well be our last <<political>> throw of the dice. We will need our friends in Talksport, the Mail & Telegraph to make sure the general public and the League One voters on the 8th-10th are well aware of this. Timing is the key, it has to be fresh in their minds.

stek26
stek26
30 May, 2020 09:21
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
Quote:
Zint
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
What we need to do as I've said on another thread is to make it widely known through the media next weekend - just before the vote - that we are donating the Crowd Fund to Food Parcels - which is what we are doing - if legal action is not necessary.
Lets see how they vote then.

You’ve lost me. We raise £12K and at the point we need it we give it
away? 🤷‍♂️ Crazy.

The key part Zint is "if legal action is not necessary"
So its right guys - you vote to keep us in League One, legal action is not necessary, so the crowd fund can go to food parcels.
or ... - you vote to demote us, we challenge you, use the crowd fund money .. and no food parcels.

Am sorry this is wrong!

You are using the political stance of hungry/in need people to influence a vote/decision in our favour!

We are dropping to a new level here guys, If people are hungry or in need then use that money now to help them - couldn’t care less what league we will be in.

This is @#$%&
This is sh1t
30 May, 2020 09:57
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
What we need to do as I've said on another thread is to make it widely known through the media next weekend - just before the vote - that we are donating the Crowd Fund to Food Parcels - which is what we are doing - if legal action is not necessary.
Lets see how they vote then.

Very noble to donate if fund not needed but don’t understand why that would make any difference to the vote.
the vote can be a difference of cost / income > 100 K+ to clubs .

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
30 May, 2020 10:18
Quote:
stek26
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
Quote:
Zint
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
What we need to do as I've said on another thread is to make it widely known through the media next weekend - just before the vote - that we are donating the Crowd Fund to Food Parcels - which is what we are doing - if legal action is not necessary.
Lets see how they vote then.

You’ve lost me. We raise £12K and at the point we need it we give it
away? 🤷‍♂️ Crazy.

The key part Zint is "if legal action is not necessary"
So its right guys - you vote to keep us in League One, legal action is not necessary, so the crowd fund can go to food parcels.
or ... - you vote to demote us, we challenge you, use the crowd fund money .. and no food parcels.

Am sorry this is wrong!

You are using the political stance of hungry/in need people to influence a vote/decision in our favour!

We are dropping to a new level here guys, If people are hungry or in need then use that money now to help them - couldn’t care less what league we will be in.

Quite the opposite. The Crowd fund was raised specifically for the Legal Challenge, and people donated on this basis. The suggestion of the SSWA that if this money was not needed it could be donated (with the donors permission) to help the Covid crisis was an absolutely fabulous gesture. The Club and supporters have done a tremendous amount of good work in the Community helping older and disadvantaged folks out during Covid Lockdown, comparable with any other club.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 30/05/2020 10:21 by Crazylegs Cranebird.

rossb07
rossb07
30 May, 2020 12:31
I think you mis-understood me CC sorry.

I agree with Stek in that it shouldn't be used as a dangling carrot to attempt to bribe some form of vote. The only losers will be those who suggest it for even considering the difference between the two. Any organisation in my book that is given those options by someone should laugh at said proposal and punish those for not doing the right thing in the first place!

I'd honestly suggest leave the politics to those who know how to make it look like they're not being complete @#$%&.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
30 May, 2020 12:57
Quote:
rossb07
I think you mis-understood me CC sorry.
I agree with Stek in that it shouldn't be used as a dangling carrot to attempt to bribe some form of vote. The only losers will be those who suggest it for even considering the difference between the two. Any organisation in my book that is given those options by someone should laugh at said proposal and punish those for not doing the right thing in the first place!

I'd honestly suggest leave the politics to those who know how to make it look like they're not being complete @#$%&.

On reflection Ross I agree with you and Stek - it could be seen as emotional bribery.

Our only hope is if the 36 teams out of 71 vote not to relegate us. Or if, for whatever reason, only 2 teams come down from the Championship. I still don't get why the Championship can play out the season but we can't. We've seen from Germany how it can work.

stek26
stek26
30 May, 2020 13:05
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
Quote:
stek26
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
Quote:
Zint
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
What we need to do as I've said on another thread is to make it widely known through the media next weekend - just before the vote - that we are donating the Crowd Fund to Food Parcels - which is what we are doing - if legal action is not necessary.
Lets see how they vote then.

You’ve lost me. We raise £12K and at the point we need it we give it
away? 🤷‍♂️ Crazy.


The key part Zint is "if legal action is not necessary"
So its right guys - you vote to keep us in League One, legal action is not necessary, so the crowd fund can go to food parcels.
or ... - you vote to demote us, we challenge you, use the crowd fund money .. and no food parcels.

Am sorry this is wrong!

You are using the political stance of hungry/in need people to influence a vote/decision in our favour!

We are dropping to a new level here guys, If people are hungry or in need then use that money now to help them - couldn’t care less what league we will be in.

Quite the opposite. The Crowd fund was raised specifically for the Legal Challenge, and people donated on this basis. The suggestion of the SSWA that if this money was not needed it could be donated (with the donors permission) to help the Covid crisis was an absolutely fabulous gesture. The Club and supporters have done a tremendous amount of good work in the Community helping older and disadvantaged folks out during Covid Lockdown, comparable with any other club.

I know your intentions are for the good of TFRC and commend your passion and ferociousness. This would be a huge fantastic gesture from our fans/people who have donated if there is no need for legal action, and I applaud that.

But what you have suggested is to use the disadvantaged people as leverage, to the clubs benefit.
By making this public as you have said, is for the intention of influencing decision, again to our gain. The issues of aid and communities in need in local areas should not be weighing on the mind of the people who in fairness, have difficult decisions to make.

This doesn’t sit well with me and degrades the reputation and support the club has had for doing such tremendous work during this crisis.

Agree with Rossb also.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
30 May, 2020 15:55
Quote:
stek26
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
Quote:
stek26
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
Quote:
Zint
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
What we need to do as I've said on another thread is to make it widely known through the media next weekend - just before the vote - that we are donating the Crowd Fund to Food Parcels - which is what we are doing - if legal action is not necessary.
Lets see how they vote then.

You’ve lost me. We raise £12K and at the point we need it we give it
away? 🤷‍♂️ Crazy.


The key part Zint is "if legal action is not necessary"
So its right guys - you vote to keep us in League One, legal action is not necessary, so the crowd fund can go to food parcels.
or ... - you vote to demote us, we challenge you, use the crowd fund money .. and no food parcels.

Am sorry this is wrong!

You are using the political stance of hungry/in need people to influence a vote/decision in our favour!

We are dropping to a new level here guys, If people are hungry or in need then use that money now to help them - couldn’t care less what league we will be in.

Quite the opposite. The Crowd fund was raised specifically for the Legal Challenge, and people donated on this basis. The suggestion of the SSWA that if this money was not needed it could be donated (with the donors permission) to help the Covid crisis was an absolutely fabulous gesture. The Club and supporters have done a tremendous amount of good work in the Community helping older and disadvantaged folks out during Covid Lockdown, comparable with any other club.

I know your intentions are for the good of TFRC and commend your passion and ferociousness. This would be a huge fantastic gesture from our fans/people who have donated if there is no need for legal action, and I applaud that.

But what you have suggested is to use the disadvantaged people as leverage, to the clubs benefit.
By making this public as you have said, is for the intention of influencing decision, again to our gain. The issues of aid and communities in need in local areas should not be weighing on the mind of the people who in fairness, have difficult decisions to make.

This doesn’t sit well with me and degrades the reputation and support the club has had for doing such tremendous work during this crisis.

Agree with Rossb also.

Thanks Stek. Yes on reflection - as I said to Ross - I agree with you both. It would be counterproductive and wrong in principle.

Bored rover
Bored rover
31 May, 2020 07:16
Amongst all the talk of legal action I think one key point has been missed, any change of the rules is brought about by the clubs themselves through discussion and then a vote. I very much doubt we would have any legal case what so ever. The EFL arranges talks between the clubs, nothing could be agreed numerous times (still isn’t) then any change is agreed by a majority vote and only then do the EFL implement it AND following that the option remains still to play on. Not sure what our case would be and who it would be against because the process is actually fair. We might not agree with or like the outcome but same can be said for many votes. Only possibly legal action would be that the vote or discussions breached a rule or regulation.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
31 May, 2020 12:05
Quote:
Bored rover
Amongst all the talk of legal action I think one key point has been missed, any change of the rules is brought about by the clubs themselves through discussion and then a vote. I very much doubt we would have any legal case what so ever. The EFL arranges talks between the clubs, nothing could be agreed numerous times (still isn’t) then any change is agreed by a majority vote and only then do the EFL implement it AND following that the option remains still to play on. Not sure what our case would be and who it would be against because the process is actually fair. We might not agree with or like the outcome but same can be said for many votes. Only possibly legal action would be that the vote or discussions breached a rule or regulation.

That's very valid and, assuming due process is being followed, that won't be the battleground.

But that by itself doesn't necessarily overcome the issue of fairness. The vice-chairman of Hemel Hempstead, a guy called Kerry Underwood, is a sports lawyer, QC and former judge. He gave an interesting opinion last month, paraphrased by a local reporter here: [twitter.com]

He was coming at that in relation to the situation in non-league, where clubs were (and still are) looking at legal action to overturn the 'null and void' outcome the FA approved. But the same arguments he makes in that tweet work the other way round. This might be where we still have a slim chance.

Only a slim chance, mind. He starts by saying "the courts are very reluctant to interfere into sport and that will be even more the case given the cause of the problem." He then outlines the legal test that needs to be met, describing it as "a high hurdle."

But, mindful that the FA has already ratified null and void in the leagues beneath the NL, "what may be held to be irrational or unreasonable is treating different leagues differently for no obvious reason apart from money, which will not go down well with the courts as a reason."

I'd have thought a strong argument could be made that the EFL proposal, especially the idea of having playoffs after abandoning the season, is about money over fairness.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31/05/2020 12:28 by Aldo'smuzzy.

DevonExile
DevonExile
31 May, 2020 12:50
I doubt that any court would consider fairness as the criteria for judgement. Fairness implies arriving at the best solution but a court is unlikely to make a judgement on whether one solution is better than an other.
It is far more likely to apply the test of reasonableness. In exceptional circumstances and with a proposal backed by at least 75% of clubs it is unlikely to find that the EFL or the FA acted unreasonably.

MESSAGES->author
Doogie'sGhost
31 May, 2020 12:55
Quote:
Aldo'smuzzy
Quote:
Bored rover
Amongst all the talk of legal action I think one key point has been missed, any change of the rules is brought about by the clubs themselves through discussion and then a vote. I very much doubt we would have any legal case what so ever. The EFL arranges talks between the clubs, nothing could be agreed numerous times (still isn’t) then any change is agreed by a majority vote and only then do the EFL implement it AND following that the option remains still to play on. Not sure what our case would be and who it would be against because the process is actually fair. We might not agree with or like the outcome but same can be said for many votes. Only possibly legal action would be that the vote or discussions breached a rule or regulation.

That's very valid and, assuming due process is being followed, that won't be the battleground.

But that by itself doesn't necessarily overcome the issue of fairness. The vice-chairman of Hemel Hempstead, a guy called Kerry Underwood, is a sports lawyer, QC and former judge. He gave an interesting opinion last month, paraphrased by a local reporter here: [twitter.com]

He was coming at that in relation to the situation in non-league, where clubs were (and still are) looking at legal action to overturn the 'null and void' outcome the FA approved. But the same arguments he makes in that tweet work the other way round. This might be where we still have a slim chance.

Only a slim chance, mind. He starts by saying "the courts are very reluctant to interfere into sport and that will be even more the case given the cause of the problem." He then outlines the legal test that needs to be met, describing it as "a high hurdle."

But, mindful that the FA has already ratified null and void in the leagues beneath the NL, "what may be held to be irrational or unreasonable is treating different leagues differently for no obvious reason apart from money, which will not go down well with the courts as a reason."

I'd have thought a strong argument could be made that the EFL proposal, especially the idea of having playoffs after abandoning the season, is about money over fairness.
Good posts both. The only other area of possible contention would be over changing rules mid season and whether this was a fair (in a legal sense, not a natural justice one) outcome that did not financially penalise Tranmere Rovers FC. And I mean this in a business rather than sporting sense. Relegation incurs a severe financial penalty to the business that is TRFC and if the EFL as a trade regulatory body (which it is really in a legal sense) has been prejudiced toward one preferred outcome Tranmere may have case for financial compensation at least. In any event, there is a high hurdle to clear and I would think a very small chance of success. And proceeding with legalities and failing may well prove far more damaging to the long term future of the club than relegation.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
31 May, 2020 13:02
Quote:
DevonExile
It is far more likely to apply the test of reasonableness. In exceptional circumstances and with a proposal backed by at least 75% of clubs it is unlikely to find that the EFL or the FA acted unreasonably.

"What may be held to be irrational or unreasonable is treating different leagues differently for no obvious reason apart from money, which will not go down well with the courts as a reason."

Bear in mind this is the argument that kicks in even when it's accepted that due process has been followed, be it the vote of the lower leagues to null and void their season or the vote of the EFL to go with PPG/playoffs. Btw the EFL proposal needs 51% not 75%.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31/05/2020 13:12 by Aldo'smuzzy.

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
31 May, 2020 13:21
Quote:
Doogie'sGhost
Good posts both. The only other area of possible contention would be over changing rules mid season and whether this was a fair (in a legal sense, not a natural justice one) outcome that did not financially penalise Tranmere Rovers FC. And I mean this in a business rather than sporting sense. Relegation incurs a severe financial penalty to the business that is TRFC and if the EFL as a trade regulatory body (which it is really in a legal sense) has been prejudiced toward one preferred outcome Tranmere may have case for financial compensation at least. In any event, there is a high hurdle to clear and I would think a very small chance of success. And proceeding with legalities and failing may well prove far more damaging to the long term future of the club than relegation.
+1

With the EFL deadline for clubs to submit alternative proposals only 48 hours away I imagine the club, having already gone public with its ideas, will make a statement over the next day or two about its position.

Zint
Zint
31 May, 2020 13:46
The basis for a legal challenge will not be ‘fairness’. It may be possible to argue that the consequence of any decision is ‘unduly perverse’ and disproportionate. However, a legal challenge is only likely to succeed if there is evidence that the process is inconsistent with existing rules. As much I would like to believe this, at the moment the evidence is weak.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
31 May, 2020 14:04
It seems we are being shafted from all angles in spite of this
[www.nottingham.ac.uk]

Has anyone out there got any good news about Tranmere? Any glimmer of hope?

Has Mark got something up his sleeve?



TRFC is #8 on Wirral's new Viking Trail
[www.facebook.com] 👊👊

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
31 May, 2020 14:09
And you can bet the EFL are taking legal advice as they go along.

However the question of inconsistency across the board, which in some respects at least appears to be "for no obvious reason apart from money", is one that does have legal connotations and will need answering. Probably by the FA, the body who'll ultimately be asked to ratify this inconsistency.

stek26
stek26
31 May, 2020 14:21
All have valid points, personally, I am not to clued up on the ramifications of the EFL decision and our case (if we have one) for legal proceedings.

Yes it’s unjust/unfair but the regulation changes are voted on by all clubs, so I’m not sure what/who you could argue against. Although I’m sure there is some clever lawyer out there who could exploit something for us.

Probably the best chance we have of getting something is compensation - maybe similar legality to unfair dismal, although in our case it would be for status rather than employment.
I don’t know....Conflict of interest,allowing clubs to vote with something to gain?

Wycombe voting to end the season, only to then compete in the playoffs is absolute scandalous!

The EFL have basically endorsed tactical voting, they should of put some form of caveat in place, e.g, if you vote to curtail the season, then you forfeit your right to the playoff places (if you sit within them).
Same for Coventry & Rotherham, get out of jail free cards!

I’ve accepted that we will go down now, can’t see clubs voting for our proposal if the impartial club reps on the EFL board unanimously voted not to change their original framework.

The whole thing stinks & self interest will prevail.
The EFL imo is obviously dragging this out so there is no time to complete the season.

Another point, with regards to consistency, why should the championship accept promoted clubs from L1, if they do not play out the season?
I think the relegation threatened Champ clubs will have a problem with this.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
31 May, 2020 15:10
Quote:
stek26
All have valid points, personally, I am not to clued up on the ramifications of the EFL decision and our case (if we have one) for legal proceedings.
Yes it’s unjust/unfair but the regulation changes are voted on by all clubs, so I’m not sure what/who you could argue against. Although I’m sure there is some clever lawyer out there who could exploit something for us.

Probably the best chance we have of getting something is compensation - maybe similar legality to unfair dismal, although in our case it would be for status rather than employment.
I don’t know....Conflict of interest,allowing clubs to vote with something to gain?

Wycombe voting to end the season, only to then compete in the playoffs is absolute scandalous!

The EFL have basically endorsed tactical voting, they should of put some form of caveat in place, e.g, if you vote to curtail the season, then you forfeit your right to the playoff places (if you sit within them).
Same for Coventry & Rotherham, get out of jail free cards!

I’ve accepted that we will go down now, can’t see clubs voting for our proposal if the impartial club reps on the EFL board unanimously voted not to change their original framework.

The whole thing stinks & self interest will prevail.
The EFL imo is obviously dragging this out so there is no time to complete the season.

Another point, with regards to consistency, why should the championship accept promoted clubs from L1, if they do not play out the season?
I think the relegation threatened Champ clubs will have a problem with this.

Wycombe's behaviour is precisely what Peterborough have jumped on and they are absolutely seething... I cannot see them just standing idly by on June 8th.

[www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk]

Their fury at Rotherham, any one of 10 teams could have got that 2nd automatic spot had the season been played out, as it is clearly safe to do so - with the precautions - now.

The reporter has a real go at Wimbledon as well.

It is disgusting but there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Wimbledon know where they can stick their anti-franchise chants from now on.

With regards your last statement, Barnsley, Luton and Charlton are at the ready.
Maybe a glimmer of hope that its other clubs lawyers who will save us.



TRFC is #8 on Wirral's new Viking Trail
[www.facebook.com] 👊👊

This is @#$%&
This is sh1t
31 May, 2020 16:54
The rule should be if you vote to end season then that means the season can no longer be played out, this means also then no play offs as this is part of the season.

Bored rover
Bored rover
31 May, 2020 20:58
To be honest id rather get relegated and be in a promotion battle next season than stay in league 1 to kicks around the relegation zone getting beaten everyweek, it would just have been nice to see us play for the chance, that said at least we save some face this way.

This is @#$%&
This is sh1t
31 May, 2020 21:51
Quote:
Bored rover
To be honest id rather get relegated and be in a promotion battle next season than stay in league 1 to kicks around the relegation zone getting beaten everyweek, it would just have been nice to see us play for the chance, that said at least we save some face this way.

Disagree !
If we get relegated we would need to reduce the playing squad costs by more, there’s no guarantee that we would be in a promotion battle.
By staying in L 1 we can sustain and maybe strengthen the team, hopefully not be involved in a relegation battle but try to cement our place in the league around mid table.
Relegation is a step backwards.

Loyden1
Loyden1
01 June, 2020 08:25
Quote:
This is @#$%&
Quote:
Bored rover
To be honest id rather get relegated and be in a promotion battle next season than stay in league 1 to kicks around the relegation zone getting beaten everyweek, it would just have been nice to see us play for the chance, that said at least we save some face this way.

Disagree !
If we get relegated we would need to reduce the playing squad costs by more, there’s no guarantee that we would be in a promotion battle.
By staying in L 1 we can sustain and maybe tstrengthen the team, hopefully not be involved in a relegation battle but try to cement our place in the league around mid table.
Relegation is a step backwards.
totally with you on that

Zint
Zint
01 June, 2020 09:52
It seems that the Championship is likely to resume on 20th June. Why can’t League 1? If the Premier League and the Championship are playing why are we even entertaining the argument of not completing fixtures? Will we forever be the poor relations, the professional league that behaves like amateurs? It makes no sense.

Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
01 June, 2020 12:40
Quote:
Zint
It seems that the Championship is likely to resume on 20th June. Why can’t League 1? If the Premier League and the Championship are playing why are we even entertaining the argument of not completing fixtures? Will we forever be the poor relations, the professional league that behaves like amateurs? It makes no sense.

Agreed all the way Zint.
Incredible as it may seem, Professional footballers are paid - to play football, not sitting on their backsides

MESSAGES->author
Doogie'sGhost
01 June, 2020 13:52
Quote:
Crazylegs Cranebird
Quote:
Zint
It seems that the Championship is likely to resume on 20th June. Why can’t League 1? If the Premier League and the Championship are playing why are we even entertaining the argument of not completing fixtures? Will we forever be the poor relations, the professional league that behaves like amateurs? It makes no sense.

Agreed all the way Zint.
Incredible as it may seem, Professional footballers are paid - to play football, not sitting on their backsides
Well, as many professional footballers at L1 level are currently furloughed, being paid to sit on their backsides rather than play football is exactly what they are expected to do at the moment.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net