Spurs bye

[kokomO]

No EFL team should now get tested when they play a Premier League team. Then we will see it kick off big time. Stupid decision.

I wouldn't imagine they will now, why would they


(and less of this "because they are looking after their players over the chance of a big payday and a game against the big boys" humbug)

[tuffers#1]

What? By correctly applying the rules as published before the season started?

As sure as night follows day......
Go try wind someone else up

I'm puzzled as to how the EFL have stitched anyone up by publishing in advance of a competition the rules and then applying those rules.

If they had not applied the rules, then that accusation of stitching a club up may have some credibility.


Please explain what the EFL have done to stitch up any club in this situation?


You may not like the rule, you may not like the outcome, but it is palpable nonsense to suggest the EFL have stitched anyone up. They have acted in accordance with the published rules.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... -test.html

A Premier League club has been forced to pay for their lower-league Carabao Cup opponents to be tested for Covid-19 this week.

They had feared their players could be infected
( Here is where the rules are an ass )

after the EFL removed the mandatory protocol for teams to be screened on a weekly basis.


A club fails CTA as per rule 5
But the EFL REMOVE the GUIDELINES for the need need to TEST .

[OyinbO]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

[kokomO]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

Agree but then isn't this yet another example of the ineptness of the EFL and how they're not fit for purpose.

I would like to think our legal team are involved now.
(No spen, not interested in your reply to this, thanks all the same )

[spen666]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

Agree but then isn't this yet another example of the ineptness of the EFL and how they're not fit for purpose.

I would like to think our legal team are involved now.
(No spen, not interested in your reply to this, thanks all the same )

What are the legal team going to do? Advise suing the EFL for following the rules of the competition?. I think not.

The EFL published rules and when it came to it followed those rules.

[B.whitehouse+10more]

The Troll is very hungry, so stop feeding it.......Thanks

[kokomO]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

Agree but then isn't this yet another example of the ineptness of the EFL and how they're not fit for purpose.

I would like to think our legal team are involved now.
(No spen, not interested in your reply to this, thanks all the same )

What are the legal team going to do? Advise suing the EFL for following the rules of the competition?. I think not.

The EFL published rules and when it came to it followed those rules.

But got it anyway......

[OyinbO]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

Agree but then isn't this yet another example of the ineptness of the EFL and how they're not fit for purpose.

I would like to think our legal team are involved now.
(No spen, not interested in your reply to this, thanks all the same )

Yes, though it was interesting how Nige paid tribute to the EFL leadership last night (while liberally throwing criticism around elsewhere). He obviously wants to keep them onside.

And I am 100% sure our lawyers are very busy with this right now, but more from a defensive POV than an offensive one, no matter what Travis et al would like us to believe.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Seems likely our players got it from one another though, doesn't it? Rather than a match situation (Mansfield all-clear)

yeah probably, but i mean theres no incentive for teams to get tested before playing a prem team. They will lose the tie and lose the money associated with it (as well as paying expenses) if theres a positive result so why will they bother as its not a requirement by the efl?

Maybe for the welfare of their own players being put ahead of money.

Other clubs have refused/declined similar offers. Whilst I agree that club owners should take that outlook - as ours did - others haven't and are more likely to refuse any such offer in the future as a result of this.

[faith1234]

West Ham will never be kicked out as they are in the premiership and the efl look after there own

[spen666]

West Ham will never be kicked out as they are in the premiership and the efl look after there own

is someone going to point out the stupidity in this post?

[StillSpike]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

So it the EPL "insist" in the EFL team getting tested and the EFL team refuse (even if offered the money to do the testing), what then? Does the EPL refuse to play the tie? If they do - who gets the bye? Not the EPL team - surely they've forfeited the tie by refusing to play. It'd have to go to the EFL team as they're within the EFL rules to NOT carry out tests. Or does the EFL make another rule that says if the EPL ask, you jump?


It's opened up something of a can of worms.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

West Ham will never be kicked out as they are in the premiership and the efl look after there own

Boring alias strikes again.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

So it the EPL "insist" in the EFL team getting tested and the EFL team refuse (even if offered the money to do the testing), what then? Does the EPL refuse to play the tie? If they do - who gets the bye? Not the EPL team - surely they've forfeited the tie by refusing to play. It'd have to go to the EFL team as they're within the EFL rules to NOT carry out tests. Or does the EFL make another rule that says if the EPL ask, you jump?


It's opened up something of a can of worms.

Presumably there are no rules forcing a lower league team to accept tests and consequences if they don't. If they amend the rules then it begs the question to why they couldn't amend the fulfillment of fixtures rule which was created a time when nobody expected a serious global pandemic.

[tuffers#1]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

So it the EPL "insist" in the EFL team getting tested and the EFL team refuse (even if offered the money to do the testing), what then? Does the EPL refuse to play the tie? If they do - who gets the bye? Not the EPL team - surely they've forfeited the tie by refusing to play. It'd have to go to the EFL team as they're within the EFL rules to NOT carry out tests. Or does the EFL make another rule that says if the EPL ask, you jump?


It's opened up something of a can of worms.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... -test.html

Sorry its a Daily Mail article but it clearly states it here.
A Premier League club has been forced to pay for their lower-league Carabao Cup opponents to be tested for Covid-19 this week.

They had feared their players could be infected after the EFL removed the mandatory protocol for teams to be screened on a weekly basis.

[Omygawd]

EFL clearly taking lessons on clarity from Boris. We can all argue about this endlessly but there is little logic in the approach being taken. The rules say we forfeit but the consequences, like so many things at present, should have been thought through when the rules were made. Whatever happened to “ what if?” thought....

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

So it the EPL "insist" in the EFL team getting tested and the EFL team refuse (even if offered the money to do the testing), what then? Does the EPL refuse to play the tie? If they do - who gets the bye? Not the EPL team - surely they've forfeited the tie by refusing to play. It'd have to go to the EFL team as they're within the EFL rules to NOT carry out tests. Or does the EFL make another rule that says if the EPL ask, you jump?


It's opened up something of a can of worms.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... -test.html

Sorry its a Daily Mail article but it clearly states it here.
A Premier League club has been forced to pay for their lower-league Carabao Cup opponents to be tested for Covid-19 this week.

They had feared their players could be infected after the EFL removed the mandatory protocol for teams to be screened on a weekly basis.

Could they be referring to Orient there as the team to be tested though?
(In a reception black hole and having trouble getting that article to load).

If an EFL team refuses and the EPL team refuses to play surely they have failed to fulfill the fixture?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

As suggested elsewhere - much more likely that this will result in EPL clubs now insisting on EFL clubs testing as a pre-condition for the game going ahead. And they will (rightly IMO) get their way.

So it the EPL "insist" in the EFL team getting tested and the EFL team refuse (even if offered the money to do the testing), what then? Does the EPL refuse to play the tie? If they do - who gets the bye? Not the EPL team - surely they've forfeited the tie by refusing to play. It'd have to go to the EFL team as they're within the EFL rules to NOT carry out tests. Or does the EFL make another rule that says if the EPL ask, you jump?


It's opened up something of a can of worms.

I'm going to have to go all spen on yo ass. The EPL clubs knew the rules when they entered the competition, if they refuse to play then they will forfeit the tie.

How many EFL clubs are left in, out of interest?

[tuffers#1]

So it the EPL "insist" in the EFL team getting tested and the EFL team refuse (even if offered the money to do the testing), what then? Does the EPL refuse to play the tie? If they do - who gets the bye? Not the EPL team - surely they've forfeited the tie by refusing to play. It'd have to go to the EFL team as they're within the EFL rules to NOT carry out tests. Or does the EFL make another rule that says if the EPL ask, you jump?


It's opened up something of a can of worms.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... -test.html

Sorry its a Daily Mail article but it clearly states it here.
A Premier League club has been forced to pay for their lower-league Carabao Cup opponents to be tested for Covid-19 this week.

They had feared their players could be infected after the EFL removed the mandatory protocol for teams to be screened on a weekly basis.

Could they be referring to Orient there as the team to be tested though?
(In a reception black hole and having trouble getting that article to load).

If an EFL team refuses and the EPL team refuses to play surely they have failed to fulfill the fixture?

It doesnt name specific teams EPL or EFL ,
What it highlights is the fact that
Its like sending soldiers into war without
any armour against soldiers with machine guns
Tanks war planes & Ships.

Obviously the EFL are not the ones with tanks & ships
But were given just bullets by the EPL !

[AckneyAwks]

It's interesting though. What's the criteria of wfbc to prevent a match being played? It's not like closing a pub because they've not been following the guidelines

Does anyone know if any persons from Waltham Forest council actually attended the stadium and got full details from the club and carried out safety checks. I would imagine so but just asking?...maybe they were working from home.

[BiggsyMalone]

Liverpool paid for Lincoln. United offered to pay for Luton but they refused

[tuffers#1]

It's interesting though. What's the criteria of wfbc to prevent a match being played? It's not like closing a pub because they've not been following the guidelines

Does anyone know if any persons from Waltham Forest council actually attended the stadium and got full details from the club and carried out safety checks. I would imagine so but just asking?...maybe they were working from home.

Didn't NT say that LOFC received the Closure by Email/phone call
After THFC Sky & The Referee were all told the game was off ?

[JimbO]

i reckon we're getting some sort of pay off probably not the full amount but a fair few quid I reckon.

[Dohnut]

yeah probably, but i mean theres no incentive for teams to get tested before playing a prem team. They will lose the tie and lose the money associated with it (as well as paying expenses) if theres a positive result so why will they bother as its not a requirement by the efl?

Maybe for the welfare of their own players being put ahead of money.

And meanwhile back in the real world.....

So you are suggesting Travis would put money ahead of the welfare of his players.

[kokomO]

Maybe for the welfare of their own players being put ahead of money.

And meanwhile back in the real world.....

So you are suggesting Travis would put money ahead of the welfare of his players.

Don't try and twist my post. Who said anything about our owners in particular. Even Travis himself has said that it's an incentive not to test.

In any case we're out now so it won't be a problem we'll have to face again.