Independent Leyton Orient Forum

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:54 am

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:49 am

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:23 am Orient did not have either a team to play, nor a ground to play ay on the date fixed for the match (ie Tuesday). The fact Orient could put out a team and host the game on Thursday is irrelevant as the match date was Tuesday. Rule 5 therefore comes into play. It may be hard, but the rule applies to all sides in that situation and as such Orient haven't got a leg to stand on.

Its gutting the club lose out on the big pay day, but that's life

I wish you would stick to the facts.

Nigel has clearly stated we had a team ready to play. Please stop making stuff up to try and run down my football club.

I am not disagreeing that they had a team and possibly a venue to play on Thursday night. That is irrelevant.

They could not host the match on the date it was fixed for ( irrespective of the alleged availability of a team). No ground tends to be a problem.

Orient could not fulfill the fixture on Tuesday night owing to the positive Covid tests. Therefore Rule 5 applies.

Its not running down the club. I am not blaming anyone or criticising anyone. The simple fact is that Orient could not fulfill the fixture and therefore Rule 5 applies.

Its not about blame or running anyone down. Its about the rules of the competition. Orient could not comply with the rules like a number of sides in the FA Cup this season who have also forfeited ties in that competition

Nigel said we had a team available to play on the Tuesday night.

Please stop with this nonsense.

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:10 am

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:54 am

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:49 am

I wish you would stick to the facts.

Nigel has clearly stated we had a team ready to play. Please stop making stuff up to try and run down my football club.

I am not disagreeing that they had a team and possibly a venue to play on Thursday night. That is irrelevant.

They could not host the match on the date it was fixed for ( irrespective of the alleged availability of a team). No ground tends to be a problem.

Orient could not fulfill the fixture on Tuesday night owing to the positive Covid tests. Therefore Rule 5 applies.

Its not running down the club. I am not blaming anyone or criticising anyone. The simple fact is that Orient could not fulfill the fixture and therefore Rule 5 applies.

Its not about blame or running anyone down. Its about the rules of the competition. Orient could not comply with the rules like a number of sides in the FA Cup this season who have also forfeited ties in that competition

Nigel said we had a team available to play on the Tuesday night.

Please stop with this nonsense.

The club was unable to fulfill the fixture ..whether it was a lack of a team, lack of a venue or both

.The only nonsense you trying to claim Orient are not in a situation covered by rule 5.

Orient were unable to fulfill the fixture on the arranged date and therefore Rule5 applies.

The match should go ahead after the agreed period of self isolation (10 days?). If the EFL object to this it will prove what we know already and that is that they are a vindictive bunch oh sh1ts.

PutneyO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:36 am The match should go ahead after the agreed period of self isolation (10 days?). If the EFL object to this it will prove what we know already and that is that they are a vindictive bunch oh sh1ts.

The Rules are clear and apply to all clubs. The next round is Tuesday. Orient were unable to fulfill the fixture and harsh as it maybe they have to forfeit the tie as per the clear unambiguous rules.

There is nothing vindictive about applying the rules of the competition that were set and published before the competition started

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:23 am
Orient did not have either a team to play, nor a ground to play ay on the date fixed for the match (ie Tuesday).

Can we deal with this a point at a time please?

You appear to be rowing back on us (Orient) not having a team - can you please confirm that you are now withdrawing this erroneous statement and you accept that we (Orient) did indeed have a team ready to play Spurs on Tuesday, as confirmed by Nigel Travis, our (Orient's) chairman. Thank you.

Remember, one point at a time please.

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:59 am

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:23 am
Orient did not have either a team to play, nor a ground to play ay on the date fixed for the match (ie Tuesday).

Can we deal with this a point at a time please?

You appear to be rowing back on us (Orient) not having a team - can you please confirm that you are now withdrawing this erroneous statement and you accept that we (Orient) did indeed have a team ready to play Spurs on Tuesday, as confirmed by Nigel Travis, our (Orient's) chairman. Thank you.

Remember, one point at a time please.

The one point is Orient were unable to fulfill their fixture owing to the Covid test results and therefore Rule 5 applies and Orient fall to forfeit the game

I am not rowing back on anything

Did Orient fulfill the fixture is the only question. Its a yes or no answer. If the answer is no, then Rule 5 falls into play. If Orient did fulfill the fixture, then there is no debate

Relentless.

We had a team . End of

aylesburyos wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:38 pm We had a team . End of

I know that, you know that, Nigel Travis knew that.

Spen thinks otherwise.

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:03 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:59 am

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:23 am
Orient did not have either a team to play, nor a ground to play ay on the date fixed for the match (ie Tuesday).

Can we deal with this a point at a time please?

You appear to be rowing back on us (Orient) not having a team - can you please confirm that you are now withdrawing this erroneous statement and you accept that we (Orient) did indeed have a team ready to play Spurs on Tuesday, as confirmed by Nigel Travis, our (Orient's) chairman. Thank you.

Remember, one point at a time please.

The one point is Orient were unable to fulfill their fixture owing to the Covid test results and therefore Rule 5 applies and Orient fall to forfeit the game

I am not rowing back on anything

Did Orient fulfill the fixture is the only question. Its a yes or no answer. If the answer is no, then Rule 5 falls into play. If Orient did fulfill the fixture, then there is no debate

Didn't we say we had a team and had deep cleaned the stadium? We also sought advice from PHE which was not forthcoming. We were saying we could fulfill the fixture, but the EFL cancelled it. The cancellation notice was from the EFL and made no comment about the O's being unable to fulfil.

For a legal person, you constantly seem unable to see the full picture.

I thought it was PHE who said the game couldn’t go ahead

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:03 pm I thought it was PHE who said the game couldn’t go ahead

I though DM said on the Orient hour that they didn't respond?

Real Al wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:01 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:03 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:59 am

Can we deal with this a point at a time please?

You appear to be rowing back on us (Orient) not having a team - can you please confirm that you are now withdrawing this erroneous statement and you accept that we (Orient) did indeed have a team ready to play Spurs on Tuesday, as confirmed by Nigel Travis, our (Orient's) chairman. Thank you.

Remember, one point at a time please.

The one point is Orient were unable to fulfill their fixture owing to the Covid test results and therefore Rule 5 applies and Orient fall to forfeit the game

I am not rowing back on anything

Did Orient fulfill the fixture is the only question. Its a yes or no answer. If the answer is no, then Rule 5 falls into play. If Orient did fulfill the fixture, then there is no debate

Didn't we say we had a team and had deep cleaned the stadium? We also sought advice from PHE which was not forthcoming. We were saying we could fulfill the fixture, but the EFL cancelled it. The cancellation notice was from the EFL and made no comment about the O's being unable to fulfil.

For a legal person, you constantly seem unable to see the full picture.

Orient were unable to fulfill the fixture.

Spin it how you want, but Orient were unable to put out a team and or host the game .


Without a team and a venue Orient couldn't comply with the requirements.


The game couldn't go ahead. Rule 5 applies.


The full picture is very clear. Orient were unable to stage the game. That is all that matters. It is Orient responsibility to gave a team and a venue. They failed on at least one if not both requirements.

So is Nigel Travis a liar, then ?

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:23 pm So is Nigel Travis a liar, then ?

Well ask yourself, did Orient stage the game?

Did they put out a team?
Did they gave a venue they could lawfully use?

If both of these were not answered in the affirmative then Orient were unable to fulfill the fixture.

Answering one in the affirmative is not sufficient.


Its a matter of fact that Orient were unable to host the game, hence the fact we are talking about the game not going ahead.

Its not a matter of blame, its a matter of fact

Real Al wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:08 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:03 pm I thought it was PHE who said the game couldn’t go ahead

I though DM said on the Orient hour that they didn't respond?

I don't know where I got that from then. I think it was Nigel actually. I'm sure he said on talksport the delay in deciding if the game would take place was down to PHE.

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:31 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:23 pm So is Nigel Travis a liar, then ?

Well ask yourself, did Orient stage the game?

Did they put out a team?
Did they gave a venue they could lawfully use?

If both of these were not answered in the affirmative then Orient were unable to fulfill the fixture.

Answering one in the affirmative is not sufficient.


Its a matter of fact that Orient were unable to host the game, hence the fact we are talking about the game not going ahead.

Its not a matter of blame, its a matter of fact

I'm not asking myself, I'm asking you. Is Nigel Travis a liar?, because you seem to be implying that he is.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:46 pm

I'm not asking myself, I'm asking you. Is Nigel Travis a liar?, because you seem to be implying that he is.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Good luck with that.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:46 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:31 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:23 pm So is Nigel Travis a liar, then ?

Well ask yourself, did Orient stage the game?

Did they put out a team?
Did they gave a venue they could lawfully use?

If both of these were not answered in the affirmative then Orient were unable to fulfill the fixture.

Answering one in the affirmative is not sufficient.


Its a matter of fact that Orient were unable to host the game, hence the fact we are talking about the game not going ahead.

Its not a matter of blame, its a matter of fact

I'm not asking myself, I'm asking you. Is Nigel Travis a liar?, because you seem to be implying that he is.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Who is saying Travis is lying? Ask that person, or conduct a survey. Its all irrelevant because the issue is did Orient fulfill the fixture

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:31 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:23 pm So is Nigel Travis a liar, then ?

Well ask yourself, did Orient stage the game?

Did they put out a team?
Did they gave a venue they could lawfully use?

If both of these were not answered in the affirmative then Orient were unable to fulfill the fixture.

Answering one in the affirmative is not sufficient.


Its a matter of fact that Orient were unable to host the game, hence the fact we are talking about the game not going ahead.

Its not a matter of blame, its a matter of fact

So, we'll go through this slowly for the blinkered...

5 Non-fulfilment of Fixtures

5.1 A Club which is unable to fulfil its obligation to complete a Competition match in Round One to (and including) Round Four due to either:

5.1.1 that Club’s Player(s) having returned a positive CAT result and self-isolating in accordance with the action plan set out in the Return to Play/Return to Training Protocols resulting in the Club not having a sufficient number of Players to fulfil the fixture; we had enough players, so this doesn't apply
or

5.1.2 any requirements or directions of the UK Government and/or by any public authority, I am given to understand that we received no such direction. It was the EFL that cancelled and they are not a public authority

shall forfeit the fixture, pay the opposing Club’s expenses in accordance with Rule 5.8 and the opposing team shall receive a bye into the next round of the Competition.

Now, I could be wrong about 5.1.2, but unless you have proof otherwise, you are wrong in what you say

Seen insists on FACTS. Unless it's him posting made up nonsense, of course.

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:40 pm

Real Al wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:08 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:03 pm I thought it was PHE who said the game couldn’t go ahead

I though DM said on the Orient hour that they didn't respond?

I don't know where I got that from then. I think it was Nigel actually. I'm sure he said on talksport the delay in deciding if the game would take place was down to PHE.

On Radio 5 live Travis said
" Public Health did not respond untill late & were unable to
pass the ground safe or unsafe .

Spen uses rule 5 a lot

Here is Rule
5.2.2  any requirements or directions of the UK Government and/or by any public authority,

the fixture shall be abandoned, each Club shall bear its own costs and neither Club shall progress to the next round. Where this results in an uneven number of Clubs being entered into the next round, the Management Committee shall arrange for byes where necessary.


He also claims rule 5 covers it
Here is Rule
5.1.1  that Club’s Player(s) having returned a positive CAT result and self-isolating in accordance with the action plan set out in the Return to Play/Return to Training Protocols resulting in the Club not having a sufficient number of Players to fulfil the fixture; or

5.1.2  any requirements or directions of the UK Government and/or by any public authority,

shall forfeit the fixture, pay the opposing Club’s expenses in accordance with Rule 5.8 and the opposing team shall receive a bye into the next round of the Competition.

5.8  The Club failing to fulfil its fixture shall be liable to pay compensation for any expenses actually incurred by the opposing Club as a direct result of the failure. The amount of compensation will be at the discretion of the Management Committee who will consider each such case on its merits. The Management Committee may refer the amount of compensation to be paid to a Disciplinary Commission appointed under Rule 24 dealing with the misconduct by the Club failing to fulfil its fixture.

Therefore
It is unclear whether Public Health deemed the ground safe or unsafe . Also the EFL cancelled the game.

Following on
Rule
6.5  Each Club shall play its full available strength in and during all Cup Competition matches, unless some satisfactory reason is given. The Board will from time to time issue a policy as to what constitutes 'full available strength'. In the event of the explanation not being deemed satisfactory the Management Committee shall have power to impose such penalties as they shall think fit. The provisions governing disciplinary matters in relation to the Competition are contained in Rule 24.

Luton changed 9 1st 11 from league match & Had 9 squad members in there side , many others had weakened teams, so an Orient 11 not made up of 1st team squad , would constitute our strongest team

Finishing with rule 1.1 last paragraph
‘Home Club’ means the Club on whose ground any Cup Competition match should be or should have been played or where ground sharing is in operation or the Clubs agree to play on a neutral ground the Club whose name appears first.

The game could have been switched to White Hart lane
Or Highbury or the Olympic stadium

Travis stated on 5 live
We had a team available & also has been reported in the press.

""I'm not saying the EFL have to bend the rules," Travis told Standard Sport on Tuesday night. "We were available to play, we had a team ready to play."


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standa ... html%3famp

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:07 pm ....

""I'm not saying the EFL have to bend the rules," Travis told Standard Sport on Tuesday night. "We were available to play, we had a team ready to play."

....

But no venue!

So Rule 5.1 applies and Orientr fall to forfeit the tie

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:28 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:07 pm ....

""I'm not saying the EFL have to bend the rules," Travis told Standard Sport on Tuesday night. "We were available to play, we had a team ready to play."

....

But no venue!

So Rule 5.1 applies and Orientr fall to forfeit the tie

"resulting in the Club not having a sufficient number of Players to fulfil the fixture; "

"I'm not saying the EFL have to bend the rules," Travis told Standard Sport on Tuesday night. "We were available to play, we had a team ready to play.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standa ... html%3famp

‘Home Club’ means -: or the Clubs agree to play on a neutral ground the Club whose name appears first.

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:07 pm ....

Here is Rule
5.2.2  any requirements or directions of the UK Government and/or by any public authority,

the fixture shall be abandoned, each Club shall bear its own costs and neither Club shall progress to the next round. Where this results in an uneven number of Clubs being entered into the next round, the Management Committee shall arrange for byes where necessary.

Try not quoting things edited and out of context to make it seem like it is something different to what it is


....

What has 5.2.2 got to do with anything. That rule applies where BOTH sides are unable to fulfill the fixture because BOTH sides have players testing positive

.2 If both Clubs are unable to fulfil their obligation to complete a Competition match in Round One to (and including) Round Four due to either:

5.2.1 both Club’s Player(s) having returned a positive CAT result and self-isolating in accordance with the action plan set out in the Return to Play/Return to Training Protocols resulting in both Clubs not having a sufficient number of Players to fulfil the fixture; or

5.2.2 any requirements or directions of the UK Government and/or by any public authority,

the fixture shall be abandoned, each Club shall bear its own costs and neither Club shall progress to the next round. Where this results in an uneven number of Clubs being entered into the next round, the Management Committee shall arrange for byes where necessary.

https://www.efl.com/carabao-cup/about-t ... gulations/