Independent Leyton Orient Forum

31 Penalty for Non-Fulfilment of Fixture Obligations

31.1 Any Club failing to fulfil its fixture obligations in respect of any match under the jurisdiction of The League on the appointed date or dates or causing The League to suspend any fixture shall be deemed guilty of misconduct, unless the circumstances giving rise to such failure are outside the control of the Club and could not have been reasonably foreseen or reasonably anticipated and remedied prior to the match.

31.2 The Club failing to fulfil its fixture or causing The League to suspend such fixture shall be liable to pay compensation for any expenses actually incurred by the opposing Club as a direct result of the failure or suspension. The amount of compensation will be at the discretion of the Board who will consider every such case on its merits. The Board may refer the amount of compensation to be paid to the Disciplinary Commission dealing with the misconduct by the Club failing to fulfil its fixture or causing The League to suspend the same.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/ef ... -fixtures/

Orient should have developed a vaccine for Covid 19 by now and are therefore clearly guilty as ch5

Ch5? Don't know what predictive text had in mind there.

All persons will be expected to self-declare that they have not, within the past 14 days, been in
contact with anyone with suspected or confirmed Covid-19, nor are they displaying any symptoms
of Covid-19.
A temperature screening service should be present at each entrance of the stadium. Aa base line
should be agreed with your Covid-19 Medical Officer. All those allowed to get into the stadium will
have their temperature scanned. Should person display an elevated temperature reading then
that person will be refused entry / taken to the isolation room.
Social distancing should be maintained at each testing point.
Where a person displays a temperature and is refused entry, a thorough clean of that area must
take place ahead of anyone else accessing it.
Should this be defined as a key role – the role contingency contact should be instructed to make
their way to the stadium.
Relevant Staff and Match Officials should undertake testing as dictated by the EFL. They must
have produced a negative test result in the testing round prior to the matchday to be declared fit.
They must still undertake temperature checks and self-declare at the entry point to the ground.

https://www.efl.com/covid-19/

All Supercede individual rules when Covid is concerned

Safety Safety Safety !!!

So it will hang on whether the club took reasonable steps to anticipate and/or remedy.

I doubt they’ll be punished. They should have got the ill players tested sooner but the EFL and government guidelines were followed

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:19 pm I doubt they’ll be punished. They should have got the ill players tested sooner by the EFL and government guidelines were followed

The Non Existant guidelines you mean ?

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:22 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:19 pm I doubt they’ll be punished. They should have got the ill players tested sooner by the EFL and government guidelines were followed

The Non Existant guidelines you mean ?

Exactly. They didn’t have to test and they weren’t showing the symptoms on the website to enable a test.

Common sense would say if 9 people got ‘a bug’ during a pandemic where the full list of symptoms aren’t known, you get them tested. I’m not sure common sense would be in their rule book

Wally Banter wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:17 pm So it will hang on whether the club took reasonable steps to anticipate and/or remedy.

https://www.efl.com/covid-19/

Step.3 pretty much covers it .

There are 2 sections
Click them both & open with drive
Each is about 48 pages long
Most is irrelevant as it concerns
Streaming, commentatiing, balls being returned
into play etc .

Only a few bits on contact with covid.

As we know staff of LOFC have been exposed we would be deemed to be breaking
Covid Protocol so the game would be " UNSAFE" to play

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:28 pm

Wally Banter wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:17 pm So it will hang on whether the club took reasonable steps to anticipate and/or remedy.

https://www.efl.com/covid-19/

Step.3 pretty much covers it .

There are 2 sections
Click them both & open with drive
Each is about 48 pages long
Most is irrelevant as it concerns
Streaming, commentatiing, balls being returned
into play etc .

Only a few bits on contact with covid.

As we know staff of LOFC have been exposed we would be deemed to be breaking
Covid Protocol so the game would be " UNSAFE" to play

West Ham blows that out of the water. EFL were consulted and approved their game going ahead

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:34 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:28 pm

Wally Banter wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:17 pm So it will hang on whether the club took reasonable steps to anticipate and/or remedy.

https://www.efl.com/covid-19/

Step.3 pretty much covers it .

There are 2 sections
Click them both & open with drive
Each is about 48 pages long
Most is irrelevant as it concerns
Streaming, commentatiing, balls being returned
into play etc .

Only a few bits on contact with covid.

As we know staff of LOFC have been exposed we would be deemed to be breaking
Covid Protocol so the game would be " UNSAFE" to play

West Ham blows that out of the water. EFL were consulted and approved their game going ahead

This is why discussions were ongoing with the EFL .
Doesnt really blow it out of the water because you are talking Rule 31
Which is EFL league rules etc

While West Ham is covered clearly as you state under rule 5.1 of the
EFL Carabo Cup .

Its not a rule from both to cancel each other out .
This isnt like Dom Cummings going to Barnard Castle for his eyesight !

The crucial bit

unless the circumstances giving rise to such failure are outside the control of the Club and could not have been reasonably foreseen or reasonably anticipated and remedied prior to the match.

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:29 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:34 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:28 pm

https://www.efl.com/covid-19/

Step.3 pretty much covers it .

There are 2 sections
Click them both & open with drive
Each is about 48 pages long
Most is irrelevant as it concerns
Streaming, commentatiing, balls being returned
into play etc .

Only a few bits on contact with covid.

As we know staff of LOFC have been exposed we would be deemed to be breaking
Covid Protocol so the game would be " UNSAFE" to play

West Ham blows that out of the water. EFL were consulted and approved their game going ahead

This is why discussions were ongoing with the EFL .
Doesnt really blow it out of the water because you are talking Rule 31
Which is EFL league rules etc

While West Ham is covered clearly as you state under rule 5.1 og the
EFL Carabo Cup .

Its not a rule from both to cancel each other out .
This isnt like Dom Cummings going to Barnard Castle for his eyesight !

Your bollocks about safety is blown out of the water by the fact the EFL allowed West Ham game to go ahead.

Safety is safety and doesn't vary from one EFL competiton to another.


If its safe for West Ham to play despite 2 players in team and manager testing positive then it is safe for Orient players who haven't tested positive to play.

In any event, contact on a football pitch is not classed as close contact requiring team mates/ opposition to self isolate.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:40 pm The crucial bit

unless the circumstances giving rise to such failure are outside the control of the Club and could not have been reasonably foreseen or reasonably anticipated and remedied prior to the match.

The problem for Orient is they argued on Tuesday they could field a team. Nothing seems to have changed since then to prevent them fielding a team on Saturday.

If there hadn't been the nonsense on Tuesday vlaimingbtbey could field a team, them I agree it would be circumstances beyond Orients control.

The question is what are the circumstances beyond Orients control that gave occurred since Travis claimed he had a teambto play on Tues after the positive rests.

Travis has shot himself in the foot with his arguments on Tuesday.

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:40 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:29 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:34 pm

West Ham blows that out of the water. EFL were consulted and approved their game going ahead

This is why discussions were ongoing with the EFL .
Doesnt really blow it out of the water because you are talking Rule 31
Which is EFL league rules etc

While West Ham is covered clearly as you state under rule 5.1 og the
EFL Carabo Cup .

Its not a rule from both to cancel each other out .
This isnt like Dom Cummings going to Barnard Castle for his eyesight !

Your bollocks about safety is blown out of the water by the fact the EFL allowed West Ham game to go ahead.

Safety is safety and doesn't vary from one EFL competiton to another.


If its safe for West Ham to play despite 2 players in team and manager testing positive then it is safe for Orient players who haven't tested positive to play.

In any event, contact on a football pitch is not classed as close contact requiring team mates/ opposition to self isolate.

All 3 were asymptomatic thought thory .
Up until 2 days ago asymptomatic were thought to be of no threat



Not anymore .
Maybe the EFL werent aware of these facts !

Remember Rule 5 covered that & they had a team ready & available to play
No other members tested positive .

https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... e-thought/
Battleship 🕹✴