| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... 12:48 - Dec 30 with 2745 views | itfcjoe |
...on all these call offs.
Are we expected to believe that clubs who have 40+ professional players can't name a squad of 14 players?
This isn't a dig at Lincoln, who have a smaller squad, but when teams like Charlton who have one of the better U23 squads are calling games off, or teams like Portsmouth, whilst smaller clubs like Wimbledon are keeping them on then something is amiss
Clubs are taking the p155 where they can get away with it to suit themselves |  |
| |  |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 12:49 - Dec 30 with 2464 views | TheBlueGnu |
I believe that the explanation should come from Helen Worth. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 12:52 - Dec 30 with 2419 views | FightingEssex |
They allowed the League One teams to postpone the 2019/20 season on the basis they couldn’t afford to play in empty stadiums and then played an entire season in empty stadiums a few months later. If they were happy enough with that clear lie, then they’re not going to do f’all to clubs with 40 people on the books suddenly claiming they can’t find 14 for a squad. It’s a tinpot league and the EFL are a tinpot outfit. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 12:52 - Dec 30 with 2407 views | Fixed_It |
Was interesting to see Wimbledon's strongly worded letter to the EFL on the matter. Good for them - as they clearly don't have the strength in depth of some others. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:00 - Dec 30 with 2324 views | SomethingBlue |
Yep, these are exceptional times and can't take the health situation lightly — but the fact remains that there are certainly some football clubs who are seeking to do anything bar play football at the moment. | |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:01 - Dec 30 with 2303 views | LankHenners |
Yep, EFL need to get a grip on this. Obviously the nature of omicron and the players spending time close to each other means it's certainly possible you get half a dozen or so players stuck in isolation at the same time but clearly some clubs are doing a much better job than others on minimising this risk.
Obviously again having to stick in youth/reserve players means you field a weaker team but as Wimbledon said in their statement it's something some clubs are just having to accept to respect the integrity of the game whereas it seems other clubs just put in a postponement request if they have a few key players out which on one level is understandable but is a piss take in reality as you say.
I mentioned the other day I saw a suggestion from someone (can't remember who, someone like Michael Cox I think) saying for a start unvaccinated players shouldn't count as a covid absence and be automatically replaced by a youth player because if they're not taking steps to help protect society then their 'society' i.e. club and fans etc. shouldn't suffer when they end up having to isolate. Some may see that as a harsh step but something has to be done as it's not sustainable or fair for clubs to keep calling off games a couple of days before KO basically because they don't fancy it. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:04 - Dec 30 with 2258 views | tractorboy1978 |
These clubs believe they can’t field a squad of 14 that is competitive enough. Should be taken out of their hands, can’t field a side then you forfeit the points. Simple. If these clubs genuinely have the number of COVID cases they purport then their protocols clearly aren’t adequate. | | | |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:05 - Dec 30 with 2226 views | BtreeBlueBlood |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 12:49 - Dec 30 by TheBlueGnu |
I believe that the explanation should come from Helen Worth. |
Agreed- grateful there is some football. 2 games cancelled now but we have played 2 games more than some above us ! We are now at a win, win, win stage and hope those in the playoffs positions slip up consistently!
Millwall had to play last night!
Manager said rules would mean a keeper on as an outfield player and a 15yr old ( must be good) playing!
Where is the consistency? Some play others don’t! |  | | |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:07 - Dec 30 with 2203 views | Leaky |
When you have Chelsea moaning about it, they have god knows how many's out players out on Loan, says it all really |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:13 - Dec 30 with 2120 views | ArnieM |
Some Clubs are taking the piss, and Lincoln can now be added to that list. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:16 - Dec 30 with 2083 views | Churchman |
Agree with this, Joe. There needs to be consistency and transparency. The EFL needs to get a grip to ensures clubs don’t use this situation to their advantage.
I also cannot see a single reason why a player should not be vaccinated. One of the NFL BBC commentators said that he’d had Covid so didn’t think he needed vaccination, but he was vaccinated because his job required it. The same should be applied to professional footballers. If they refuse, they don’t get paid. Simple. |  | | |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:21 - Dec 30 with 2036 views | Chrisd |
Of course they are. Are we to expect that Covid is suddenly going away come 1st January? The stance clubs are taking they are clearly using Covid as an excuse to cover a few injuries otherwise we should expect this same stance by clubs for the rest of the season. However, we all know this won't happen as they won't want to miss out financially and then surprise, surprise games are then played as scheduled. Who'd have thought that?! | |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:21 - Dec 30 with 2035 views | Illinoisblue |
That’s relying on the EFL to behave and act like a professional organization with competent people in charge. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:30 - Dec 30 with 1951 views | ITFC_Forever |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:21 - Dec 30 by Illinoisblue |
That’s relying on the EFL to behave and act like a professional organization with competent people in charge. |
Now you're just being silly. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:45 - Dec 30 with 1810 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
The rules were outlined as a team needing 14 available players and at least 1 goalkeeper. Players considered are either the named squad or any under 23 player with a first team appearance or who have appeared in the EFL for another club. The lower the level, the less likely they are to have players who have played on loan for another club in the EFL. I suspect some clubs use fewer players in the mickey mouse cups or the FA Cup (assuming they are meant by first team appearance anyway).
I am not certain how they independently assess a player's availability. If they are no longer isolating because of Covid and are available to play but fitness staff say they can only do 15-30 minutes, say, they appear to be considered as one of the 14.
Maybe some clubs are getting away with saying players are unavailable when they should be available. Maybe some clubs have more unvaccinated who are having to isolate (it is notable that we are not seeing Celina at the moment). Some clubs would only need 3 keepers out (us included).
I also think the much higher rate of postponements (in the Premier League as well as the EFL) is actually down to much higher levels of the virus than at any earlier time. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:46 - Dec 30 with 1812 views | acj |
It seems really bizarre that the EFL allow it when you consider that a couple of years ago they forced Bolton to play their u12s for the first part of the season. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:52 - Dec 30 with 1764 views | Hipsterectomy |
don't the EFL allow it if both clubs agree to it? I think it's only the Prem where you need to prove cases and apply for consideration of a postponement whereby you must argue your case
it's also our fault if we're letting clubs postpone matches |  |
| Walter Smith's Barmy Army |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:56 - Dec 30 with 1724 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:52 - Dec 30 by Hipsterectomy |
don't the EFL allow it if both clubs agree to it? I think it's only the Prem where you need to prove cases and apply for consideration of a postponement whereby you must argue your case
it's also our fault if we're letting clubs postpone matches |
Unless there are good reasons from our point of view too. We have had a number of players unavailable and we have a new manager and coaching team in. It might have been considered wise from our view. Or we might simply have realised that 2 hours before kick off they would announce a number of positive lateral flows that would make for a late postponement anyway! | |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:14 - Dec 30 with 1594 views | Ryorry |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:46 - Dec 30 by acj |
It seems really bizarre that the EFL allow it when you consider that a couple of years ago they forced Bolton to play their u12s for the first part of the season. |
Did they?  |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:25 - Dec 30 with 1509 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:14 - Dec 30 by Ryorry |
Did they? |
No they didn't. But they had a very small squad that included a lot of U23 players who are supposed to be limited in the amount of games they play over a week. It was a very similar situation to the clubs that are currently complaining that they are still being forced to play. | |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:27 - Dec 30 with 1497 views | Stewart27 |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 13:01 - Dec 30 by LankHenners |
Yep, EFL need to get a grip on this. Obviously the nature of omicron and the players spending time close to each other means it's certainly possible you get half a dozen or so players stuck in isolation at the same time but clearly some clubs are doing a much better job than others on minimising this risk.
Obviously again having to stick in youth/reserve players means you field a weaker team but as Wimbledon said in their statement it's something some clubs are just having to accept to respect the integrity of the game whereas it seems other clubs just put in a postponement request if they have a few key players out which on one level is understandable but is a piss take in reality as you say.
I mentioned the other day I saw a suggestion from someone (can't remember who, someone like Michael Cox I think) saying for a start unvaccinated players shouldn't count as a covid absence and be automatically replaced by a youth player because if they're not taking steps to help protect society then their 'society' i.e. club and fans etc. shouldn't suffer when they end up having to isolate. Some may see that as a harsh step but something has to be done as it's not sustainable or fair for clubs to keep calling off games a couple of days before KO basically because they don't fancy it. |
It’s not remotely harsh.
No vaccine = no football. Minimum wage care homes operate this policy. These pathetic wrapped up in cotton wool footballers should adhere too. And they should be suspended without pay.
It’s amazing how clubs have the audacity to name weakened teams in cup games but won’t entertain playing their under 23s in the league. How on earth the EFL haven’t got a grip on this is ridiculous. | | | |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:33 - Dec 30 with 1478 views | Pinewoodblue |
It isn’t just EFL Crystal Palace tried to get a game postponed, the request was denied, they then only made one change from previous starting eleven, but didn’t have a full subs bench. |  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:39 - Dec 30 with 1416 views | Pinewoodblue |
HAve a feeling both Gillingham and Lincoln are going to regret seeking postponement after we massacre their goal differences when rescheduled games played. | |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:40 - Dec 30 with 1403 views | Ryorry |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:25 - Dec 30 by Nthsuffolkblue |
No they didn't. But they had a very small squad that included a lot of U23 players who are supposed to be limited in the amount of games they play over a week. It was a very similar situation to the clubs that are currently complaining that they are still being forced to play. |
Only had 4 hrs kip last night & soon as I left my laptop realised it was a whoosh-trap 
Yep, and at the very least clubs should not be able to decide for themselves, external assessors should do the job. | |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:57 - Dec 30 with 1326 views | jayessess |
Think transparency is important, but I sort of agree with the EFL that it's not ideal that lots of games feature extremely weakened teams. Sure it's annoying that we don't get to play, but it'd also be pretty galling to miss out on a play-off place to a team that's played 2/3/4 games against youth teams and racked up 20+ goals.
The rule - you play if you've got 13 outfielders available who have played at least 1 football league match - seems fair enough to me. You ensure every game is contested by two proper teams of adult professional footballers.
Feel like you could clear it up quite easily - just get the postponing team to give a breakdown ("we have 5 injuries, 4 covid cases, 2 covid isolations, these isolations periods last until January 3, this left us with 12 eligible outfield players" etc.), then the EFL to say we have confirmation and documentation for all relevant cases. [Post edited 30 Dec 2021 18:17]
|  |
| |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 15:08 - Dec 30 with 1286 views | brogansnose |
| There really needs to be some transparency from the EFL.... on 14:57 - Dec 30 by jayessess |
Think transparency is important, but I sort of agree with the EFL that it's not ideal that lots of games feature extremely weakened teams. Sure it's annoying that we don't get to play, but it'd also be pretty galling to miss out on a play-off place to a team that's played 2/3/4 games against youth teams and racked up 20+ goals.
The rule - you play if you've got 13 outfielders available who have played at least 1 football league match - seems fair enough to me. You ensure every game is contested by two proper teams of adult professional footballers.
Feel like you could clear it up quite easily - just get the postponing team to give a breakdown ("we have 5 injuries, 4 covid cases, 2 covid isolations, these isolations periods last until January 3, this left us with 12 eligible outfield players" etc.), then the EFL to say we have confirmation and documentation for all relevant cases. [Post edited 30 Dec 2021 18:17]
|
This could get more complicated if we're not at the peak of the Omicron wave with more matches being postponed and the fixture list getting even more conjested. Something may well have to give on this. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
