Three points debacle
- Thread starter Mwelolo
- Start date
TeaCider
Well-known member
As an example from this season, the Premier League had said that points deductions may occur for teams that repeatedly postpone fixtures.
Fixtures being plural.
So it very blatantly is not an automatic rule bound punishment that is clear for all to see.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Exactly it was a first offence for one and we DID notify the prem league if anyone was negligent it was the prem league that at best handled it amateurishly and worst stitched us up.
a club from “ nowhere” buying the sort of players the big clubs have only dreamed of. Including taking one from under the noses of arsenal.
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
I didn't say it was an automatic rule. I said that unilaterally postponing a fixture was a breach of the rules and that the rules provided a points deduction as an available penalty. Repeatedly postponing fixtures in the middle of a pandemic hardly compares with unilaterally postponing a fixture because we didn't fancy playing it.
Sorry Zorro but this is insular, small club, chip on the shoulder stuff. Notifying them is irrelevant. We unilaterally cancelled a fixture without good reason. That's the bottom line. And we did so because we didn't want to play the game. It wasn't safety related, it wasn't anything extreme, it was a few players with the sniffles. We could and should have played the game. We only have ourselves to blame that we were deducted points.
There simply isn't another example of a team unilaterally cancelling a fixtures a couple of days before a game because a few players are a bit ill. You can argue all you like about other teams' punishments but all that does is serve to evidence the chip on your shoulder.
It's a messageboard for discussion. If you want everyone to just agree with each other then maybe it's too difficult a place for you to be.
davidmills
Well-known member
can everybody just agree what adi dem says is always right then we can end this thread.
another one ruined.
i.m.o.
another one ruined.
i.m.o.
newyddion
Well-known member
Mustoe was one of the ones that was out injured I believe. Chris Freestone and Ben Roberts both had flu (so I don’t know who the third goalkeeper available was.
I think the team would have had to have looked something like this:
————————Walsh———————-
Anderson—Fjortoft—Beck—Blackmore
Hignett—Emerson—Robson—Juninho
———-Ravanelli—Campbell————-
I think it might had had more to do with how Robson was being criticised in the press for being unprofessional. We’d just come off the back of a 5-1 drubbing from Liverpool now we were about to field a team with the manager, his mates, a youth team player and no central defenders.
Maybe Robson would have played himself as a sweeper (as he did against Arsenal) and maybe Blackmore and Anderson could have played centrally.
I bet that team isn’t far off what we had to put out. Playing through Xmas wouldn’t have helped matters with the foreign lads (Ravanelli)
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
Mustoe confirmed that the three stars were out.
Otto42
Well-known member
It is possible for us and the premier league to have both been at fault. I can also see the chip on the shoulder, as there are other examples of smaller clubs being treated more harshly by the football authorities. Look at Swindon in 1990, for example, compared to West Ham over the Tevez affair.
newyddion
Well-known member
For the past 23 years Ravanelli was available
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
You’re questioning the account of a reliable and honest player who was there at the time to fit your narrative.
Absolutely true and the PL did not behave well. But ultimately we carried the burden of responsibility, not them.
But he was unavailable for the Blackburn game.
newyddion
Well-known member
Saying we’ve only got 12 first team players available hardly sets us up for a win. Players including internationals and a record transfer.
Ben Roberts said he had the flu, yet we said we had three goalkeepers fit.
It sounds like a massive **** up from start to finish from a very inexperienced team who were able to blag some of the best players in the world.
newyddion
Well-known member
The press, other managers and Ravanelli himself said he was fit to play the game.. if he was ‘unavailable’ it might have only been through him not wanting to play in a patched team with no defenders.
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
That’s not my recollection. Any links?
Anton_Berg
Well-known member
Ultimately, it was up to MFC to take care that they had written permission to postpone.
Having said that, the Boro position will always be misrepresented. Ask any non-Boro fan if they can remember the circumstances and if they can, the most likely reply would be 'Boro were propping up the table and they couldn't have their strongest team to play Blackburn, and wanted a postponement'.
In fact, we were looking like mid-table finishers at that point. Blackburn were a strong team on paper and no one could understand their run of bad form up to that point. Every club in the PL would therefore chose to be playing blackburn that Saturday, because they looked beatable but would likely improve later on. You would only want to avoid Blackburn if your team was seriously weakened. West Ham wanted the match to go ahead because it looked likely their relegation rivals Blackburn would lose that day, but likely find form later in the year.
Also, postponements may not have happened so far in 'Premier League history', but were not unheard of in Football League history. I can think of one in the 70s where Leeds had a postponement owing to players being ill, and no great controversy. I suppose this is what Robson was thinking of prior to the Blackburn match, and was expecting the same treatment..
Having said that, the Boro position will always be misrepresented. Ask any non-Boro fan if they can remember the circumstances and if they can, the most likely reply would be 'Boro were propping up the table and they couldn't have their strongest team to play Blackburn, and wanted a postponement'.
In fact, we were looking like mid-table finishers at that point. Blackburn were a strong team on paper and no one could understand their run of bad form up to that point. Every club in the PL would therefore chose to be playing blackburn that Saturday, because they looked beatable but would likely improve later on. You would only want to avoid Blackburn if your team was seriously weakened. West Ham wanted the match to go ahead because it looked likely their relegation rivals Blackburn would lose that day, but likely find form later in the year.
Also, postponements may not have happened so far in 'Premier League history', but were not unheard of in Football League history. I can think of one in the 70s where Leeds had a postponement owing to players being ill, and no great controversy. I suppose this is what Robson was thinking of prior to the Blackburn match, and was expecting the same treatment..
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
This isn’t really accurate.
Boro had just gone 12 league games without a win and had been smashed 5-1 at Liverpool in the previous game. We scored 14 goals in our first 6 games but then 7 in the next 12 and were conceding at a rate of knots. We were fifth bottom only 2 points outside of the bottom 3.
Blackburn were just below us but on a good run. They wanted to play an injury ravaged team.
We wanted to avoid playing the game.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Not at all I’m just saying how much about squad selection would a player really know.
he might not have known all the facts.
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
I feel certain that a senior pro would know the injury/illness status of the first team. And if he didn’t why would he say it?