Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Barnsley must be rubbish, their the only team who couldn’t score against us, so far!
According to the beeb their still above us on goal difference?
You (and Beeb) are correct.
They have minus 6, we have minus 7.
They are still above us.Looking like yet another tournament the heathen kilt wearing beer swillers wont be at.They can still qualify via the Nations League play-offs
Mulgrew is oneof the best set piece takers outside the PL.
That free kick in the first half was on a sixpence.
He scored three last year direct from corners.
So why are we still having Lee “can’t get it over first man” Evans taking them in the last desperate seconds?The biggest positive, and I do mean this sincerely, is that we had a match today, and we will have a match in a fortnight.
Some football fans don’t.
Yes, I too am thinking Cook’s time is done, that we are struggling far more than I thought we would be, but thank goodness we can moan about that.Bury’s owner has not played along, or provided anything.
And don’t give me “a credible bid was made 5 minutes before the deadline”.
Where was it a month ago?he publicly stated in front of millions listening on radio that he had the proof they required and he offered to show that proof to a 3rd party.
So why didn’t he?
Why didn’t he just do that?Nonsense.
Bury would have had the same flexibilities if they had produced anything.
But they didn’t. I am absolutely no fan of the EFL, but Dale backed them into a corner.
I truly believe the EFL do not want to lose clubs, but whereas Bolton kept holding out some hope (which has now proved corect) Bury didn’t provide anything.
Have you kids? If so you’ll know the “bed at 8” is a moveable feast. There are flexibilities in any reasonable discussion. Final deadlines aren’t always final.
Bury were afforded that too.
They just abused it until it was time for the EFL to make a decision.Edit- is there a post here I’m responding to that has disappeared?
How can a man who has had 43 of the 52 companies he has owned liquidated be allowed to take over a community asset by the EFL for a pound?Staggering.
Because the fit and proper test only looks at liquidations of football clubs. It takes no consideration of other businesses they may have been involved in, unless he is undischarged, or has had a fraud conviction which is unspent.
The test is actualy a rather bizarre one; it gives reasons why someone should be excluded from being involved in a club (and note it’s not just owner, but directors, CEO, club secretary etc) not whether they can afford to run a club. It’s about face in my opinion.
There is no question of whether they have the funds to run the club, how they will manage it, how much reserve they have. Under the current rules I could buy the club.
The EFL are at fault for never tightening those rules, but equally they have/had no authority to step in when they saw things going wrong, in teh same way they could do nothing about Oyston and do nothing about Ashley.
How can two similar situations be treated so differently.Because Dale, the owner at Bury, has not engaged meaningfully with the EFL. They have had no option, as the only possible deal that has been looked at by Dale collapsed when the potential buyers looked into the books and pulled out.
Bolton have at least been engaging with EFL, and despite all that is being said here they have obviously been able to provide the EFL with a hope that a realistic buyer can be found. In fact most of the tales coming out are that the problems about doing a deal are problems created by owners/former owners etc.
We may not like it because we may not like Bolton, but there is to me a clear difference in the situations, and accordingly to now have been treated differently.Gone, I’m afraid.
A sad day for football.