El Mayor
StechyBlue
So in effect the league help club out financially so they avoid possible points deduction.

EFL are a complete joke.

I think they're more worried about them not being able to fulfil match obligations. Which means pure hassle for EFL. I am not sure they would even know what to do and thats what they might be worried about.

Basically this.

With 40 games gone a team having all their games expunged from the records causes havoc. Last time I think was Aldershot, and that was in 1992 after 36 games
I don’t want Bolton to go to the wall either. Thought it would be interesting to see how many points our relegation rivals have picked up against them though, which, if removed would help us. The answer is remarkably few:
Rotherham 1, Reading 1, Millwall 1, Wigan 4, and QPR 3, and all 5 have played them twice.
Would put Wigan on 37 I guess ie a 2 point extra cushion
It’s down to us to help ourselves though isn’t it?
10:36, Tue 9 Apr
Almajir.

You have been making the EFL's case for a solid season now.

I may not be paranoid.

However, your consistent use of abuse to try and stop criticism of the EFL has been a whole season long. What's your next season going to focus on?

I notice that your analysis no longer focuses on the Villa. So, I guess, instead of focussing your research on wealthier clubs you will continue to try and expose the problems at the Blues, a club that in 144 years has never had owners with the wealth to compete with the wealthier successful clubs. Our problems are like most football clubs in that respect, but journalists in the UK rarely take seriously the wealthier clubs' bending and breaching of the rules.

My view is clear. Once, your work focussed on exposing problems with Blues owners which was invaluable to Blues fans. That was good. You may do so again. However, your season long argument that it is right and proper for the EFL to punish the Blues shows a lack of judgement. No, poor judgement.

What you fail to realise is that you have gone into advocacy journalism. Specifically, advocating the EFL's case. That is unacceptable from my point of view. What the EFL have done to the Blues is wholly unacceptable and unjust and your, sometimes enraged, sometimes strange attempts to make your case have been disingenuous. Not least the thread you started suggesting we were or should grieve about the death of the Blues. (Stages of Grief!).

The real issue, at hand, is this. Researchers, politicians, journalists always find ways to avoid focussing on the wealthy. Here's an analogy.

Some years ago, one of the telly companies thought it would be a good laugh to take the piss out of poor people living in a street in Winson Green. The sensible people in the road wouldn't participate but they did find some daft one's. There was a big woman from that road, as I remember, who ended up on current affairs programmes saying 'we deserved to be punished'. It was comical and tragic. Poverty pawn it was.

Like you, they could have focussed on fools and morons with more cash. The telly producers could have chosen Monkspath, Little Aston or Chelsea. They chose not to. Like you, they chose an easier target.

In the future, I would advise you to continue with advocacy journalism. Take Blues side in the future.
[www.prostatecanceruk.org] is a really useful link.

You can access information, speak to an advisor with expert information or email them. It’s a really good service, I think.
But we broke the rules.
Antonio Gramsci
Poverty pawn it was.
*porn

Antonio Gramsci
Like you, they could have focussed on fools and morons with more cash. The telly producers could have chosen Monkspath, Little Aston or Chelsea. They chose not to.
I think you'll find they did choose Chelsea.
10:47, Tue 9 Apr
Almajir.

You have been making the EFL's case for a solid season now.

I may not be paranoid.

However, your consistent use of abuse to try and stop criticism of the EFL has been a whole season long. What's your next season going to focus on?

I notice that your analysis no longer focuses on the Villa. So, I guess, instead of focussing your research on wealthier clubs you will continue to try and expose the problems at the Blues, a club that in 144 years has never had owners with the wealth to compete with the wealthier successful clubs. Our problems are like most football clubs in that respect, but journalists in the UK rarely take seriously the wealthier clubs' bending and breaching of the rules.

My view is clear. Once, your work focussed on exposing problems with Blues owners which was invaluable to Blues fans. That was good. You may do so again. However, your season long argument that it is right and proper for the EFL to punish the Blues shows a lack of judgement. No, poor judgement.

What you fail to realise is that you have gone into advocacy journalism. Specifically, advocating the EFL's case. That is unacceptable from my point of view. What the EFL have done to the Blues is wholly unacceptable and unjust and your, sometimes enraged, sometimes strange attempts to make your case have been disingenuous. Not least the thread you started suggesting we were or should grieve about the death of the Blues. (Stages of Grief!).

The real issue, at hand, is this. Researchers, politicians, journalists always find ways to avoid focussing on the wealthy. Here's an analogy.

Some years ago, one of the telly companies thought it would be a good laugh to take the piss out of poor people living in a street in Winson Green. The sensible people in the road wouldn't participate but they did find some daft one's. There was a big woman from that road, as I remember, who ended up on current affairs programmes saying 'we deserved to be punished'. It was comical and tragic. Poverty pawn it was.

Like you, they could have focussed on fools and morons with more cash. The telly producers could have chosen Monkspath, Little Aston or Chelsea. They chose not to. Like you, they chose an easier target.

In the future, I would advise you to continue with advocacy journalism. Take Blues side in the future.

He’s an establishment mole. The Tom Watson of SHA!

More seriously, if you listen to yesterdays PM on radio 4 from about 46 minutes there’s an interview with a French bloke who makes your point beautifully.......not the one about Mayor, obvs, the other one
10:48, Tue 9 Apr
Do you not think the fact our owners have been shown to be incompetent directly leads to the EFL punishment?
Thongs
Number8 is the worlds best forum poster. FACT. End of chat.
10:49, Tue 9 Apr
Slightly Turbid
But we broke the rules.

Thankyou ...
For one fleeting moment I thought our thoroughly deserved period of self-flagellation had been curtailed.
Your timely reminder should ensure that we can all now continue to 'enjoy' the punishment for at least another 5 weeks.

BTW did you know that Monks used to whip themselves .......it's a sign !!!
Rosie ....Ohh Rosie ....I'd like to paint your knickers Blue and White !
10:49, Tue 9 Apr
Slightly Turbid
But we broke the rules.

Exactly. Perhaps the gentleman in question would like to explain why, in his opinion, Blues are being ill-treated by the EFL rather than just having a pop at Mayor?

Otherwise it's just a rant.

Oh, just another point while we're discussing, good journalism is about objectivity without bias.
10:52, Tue 9 Apr
Slightly Turbid
But we broke the rules.

Exactly. Perhaps the gentleman in question would like to explain why, in his opinion, Blues are being ill-treated by the EFL rather than just having a pop at Mayor?

Otherwise it's just a rant.

Oh, just another point while we're discussing, good journalism is about objectivity without bias.

There’s very little objectivity from the hair shirters on here, they are just happy to demonise our owners
10:53, Tue 9 Apr
Hi Ren

Antonio Gramsci
Almajir.

You have been making the EFL's case for a solid season now.

I may not be paranoid.

However, your consistent use of abuse to try and stop criticism of the EFL has been a whole season long. What's your next season going to focus on?

I notice that your analysis no longer focuses on the Villa. So, I guess, instead of focussing your research on wealthier clubs you will continue to try and expose the problems at the Blues, a club that in 144 years has never had owners with the wealth to compete with the wealthier successful clubs. Our problems are like most football clubs in that respect, but journalists in the UK rarely take seriously the wealthier clubs' bending and breaching of the rules.

My view is clear. Once, your work focussed on exposing problems with Blues owners which was invaluable to Blues fans. That was good. You may do so again. However, your season long argument that it is right and proper for the EFL to punish the Blues shows a lack of judgement. No, poor judgement.

What you fail to realise is that you have gone into advocacy journalism. Specifically, advocating the EFL's case. That is unacceptable from my point of view. What the EFL have done to the Blues is wholly unacceptable and unjust and your, sometimes enraged, sometimes strange attempts to make your case have been disingenuous. Not least the thread you started suggesting we were or should grieve about the death of the Blues. (Stages of Grief!).

The real issue, at hand, is this. Researchers, politicians, journalists always find ways to avoid focussing on the wealthy. Here's an analogy.

Some years ago, one of the telly companies thought it would be a good laugh to take the piss out of poor people living in a street in Winson Green. The sensible people in the road wouldn't participate but they did find some daft one's. There was a big woman from that road, as I remember, who ended up on current affairs programmes saying 'we deserved to be punished'. It was comical and tragic. Poverty pawn it was.

Like you, they could have focussed on fools and morons with more cash. The telly producers could have chosen Monkspath, Little Aston or Chelsea. They chose not to. Like you, they chose an easier target.

In the future, I would advise you to continue with advocacy journalism. Take Blues side in the future.
10:59, Tue 9 Apr
What exactly have they done in their tenure so far that makes them any good?

And don't say appoint Monk because apparently they had to be persuaded to do that.
Thongs
Number8 is the worlds best forum poster. FACT. End of chat.
11:02, Tue 9 Apr
They 'picked on us' because we were the only ones stupid enough to fail, it's merely numbers on a spreadsheet.

Ren is largely held responsible because he runs the club and there's previous evidence that he's incompetent because he messed up a Chinese club and a Chinese academy.
@LeMod1875
11:03, Tue 9 Apr
Fat Buddha
Slightly Turbid
But we broke the rules.

Exactly. Perhaps the gentleman in question would like to explain why, in his opinion, Blues are being ill-treated by the EFL rather than just having a pop at Mayor?

Otherwise it's just a rant.

Oh, just another point while we're discussing, good journalism is about objectivity without bias.

There’s very little objectivity from the hair shirters on here, they are just happy to demonise tirelessly and off their own back unpick the opaque nature of our chain of ownership and hold to account the gross incompetence and arrogance of our owners

FTFY
11:04, Tue 9 Apr
Pointing out that we broke the rules we agreed to abide by is not 'hair-shirt'.


It's definitely not as ridiculous as those on here who think we should be angrily blaming anyone but BCFC for this shambles.
Old MacDonald had a farm. EU, EU... Oh.
11:04, Tue 9 Apr
Absolute wibble gram.
Old MacDonald had a farm. EU, EU... Oh.
11:05, Tue 9 Apr
number8
What exactly have they done in their tenure so far that makes them any good?

And don't say appoint Monk because apparently they had to be persuaded to do that.

Do the free clappers v the vile last season count?
11:17, Tue 9 Apr
Antonio Gramsci
Almajir.

You have been making the EFL's case for a solid season now.

I may not be paranoid.

However, your consistent use of abuse to try and stop criticism of the EFL has been a whole season long. What's your next season going to focus on?

I notice that your analysis no longer focuses on the Villa. So, I guess, instead of focussing your research on wealthier clubs you will continue to try and expose the problems at the Blues, a club that in 144 years has never had owners with the wealth to compete with the wealthier successful clubs. Our problems are like most football clubs in that respect, but journalists in the UK rarely take seriously the wealthier clubs' bending and breaching of the rules.

My view is clear. Once, your work focussed on exposing problems with Blues owners which was invaluable to Blues fans. That was good. You may do so again. However, your season long argument that it is right and proper for the EFL to punish the Blues shows a lack of judgement. No, poor judgement.

What you fail to realise is that you have gone into advocacy journalism. Specifically, advocating the EFL's case. That is unacceptable from my point of view. What the EFL have done to the Blues is wholly unacceptable and unjust and your, sometimes enraged, sometimes strange attempts to make your case have been disingenuous. Not least the thread you started suggesting we were or should grieve about the death of the Blues. (Stages of Grief!).

The real issue, at hand, is this. Researchers, politicians, journalists always find ways to avoid focussing on the wealthy. Here's an analogy.

Some years ago, one of the telly companies thought it would be a good laugh to take the piss out of poor people living in a street in Winson Green. The sensible people in the road wouldn't participate but they did find some daft one's. There was a big woman from that road, as I remember, who ended up on current affairs programmes saying 'we deserved to be punished'. It was comical and tragic. Poverty pawn it was.

Like you, they could have focussed on fools and morons with more cash. The telly producers could have chosen Monkspath, Little Aston or Chelsea. They chose not to. Like you, they chose an easier target.

In the future, I would advise you to continue with advocacy journalism. Take Blues side in the future.

Okay point by point.

The B6 mob - covered this before on here, but I'll repeat for you. I've not touched them much because I don't have time, energy or inclination. I barely have enough to manage my Blues stuff right now, so why would I concentrate on them. I don't care if they're effed over, I do care if Blues are.

I think a lot of your post is incredibly patronising - and this is from me, one of the most condescending people I know.

You clearly have constructed a straw man argument.

You think I'm advocating the EFL's case when the truth is I've picked on them too. Again, I'll repeat here for you as you seem incapable of reading my other posts. Their approach to the rules is wrong, they're opaque and run for the benefit of the owners of clubs rather than football as a whole. However, they're all we've got - Blues are a member of the league and a shareholder in the EFL so we have to accept that Blues are a part of the league.

You think I don't take Blues' side. This is where you are absolutely without doubt wrong. My loyalty is to the badge - not to any member of staff, to the manager, or to the players but to the badge and what that represents. That means if people act incompetently either through naivete or negligence I'll report on that. I try my best to judge people on their actions rather than their personality and I try to source everything from multiple sources.

You COMPLETELY missed the point about my five stages of P&S post. I was using it as an analogy to show why we are reacting the way we are, why it's perfectly reasonable to do so but also to inform people why it's not as simple as it seems.

The big thing in this Gramsci is you are resorting to emotions rather than facts. I am willing to bet I know a whole lot more about the intricacies of the situation and have a much deeper understanding of it than you do. Therefore, I can be more objective rather than wailing in the subjective manner you have been doing.

FWIW. this whole nine points business is nothing, an inconvenience in comparison to some of the problems the club could potentially be facing. The titular owner of the club Paul Suen Cho Hung is being investigated by the Market Misconduct Tribunal in Hong Kong - this is public domain news - and should he be found guilty he could be disqualified as owner. There are issues over how money is coming into the company, where it is coming from. I've spent months trying to find this stuff out and most of it I can't publish right now as my research is incomplete.

In short, take your advice and shove it where the sun don't shine.
11:22, Tue 9 Apr
Fat Buddha
Slightly Turbid
But we broke the rules.

Exactly. Perhaps the gentleman in question would like to explain why, in his opinion, Blues are being ill-treated by the EFL rather than just having a pop at Mayor?

Otherwise it's just a rant.

Oh, just another point while we're discussing, good journalism is about objectivity without bias.

There’s very little objectivity from the hair shirters on here, they are just happy to demonise tirelessly and off their own back unpick the opaque nature of our chain of ownership and hold to account the gross incompetence and arrogance of our owners

FTFY

Nope. It was right first time, you arrogant individual
11:23, Tue 9 Apr
Fat Buddha
Slightly Turbid
But we broke the rules.

Exactly. Perhaps the gentleman in question would like to explain why, in his opinion, Blues are being ill-treated by the EFL rather than just having a pop at Mayor?

Otherwise it's just a rant.

Oh, just another point while we're discussing, good journalism is about objectivity without bias.

There’s very little objectivity from the hair shirters on here, they are just happy to demonise our owners

Sorry mate, but you're wrong.
11:24, Tue 9 Apr
Pointing out that we broke the rules we agreed to abide by is not 'hair-shirt'.


It's definitely not as ridiculous as those on here who think we should be angrily blaming anyone but BCFC for this shambles.

Glorying in it in a sickeningly hand wring way is hair shirt