Bolton | Page 6 | Vital Football

Bolton

nlondonimp said:
i find it odd that bolton are allowed to play games, even though their takeover hasn't happened - so how can they possibly have proof of funds for this season.\
whereas bury are not allowed to play, even though they have a legally agreed cva in place. reason given by the efl, details in relation to financial obligations.
Click to expand...


Reasons seems to be Bury owner wouldn't reply properly to EFL whereas Bolton did (albeit it might have been a pile of doodoo that they said).
 
Imps2018 said:
Not sure I agree with this.

a) Consider the January transfer window, if someone goes out and signs a team of quality players - is it unfair on teams who have to play that team after January?

b) What about a club that sells all their players in January? Is it unfair on the teams who played them early on in the season?
Click to expand...
Yes, but this is not a normal scenario, for the following reasons:

a) no club will ever do that; however, Bolton are in an almost unique position in this respect, because they will probably have significant (i.e. abnormal) transfer funds available in January compared with what any given lower league club usually has. That means the playing field is not level prior to and post the January transfer window, and by a significant margin. Luke is exactly right.

b) No club will ever do this either, so it is irrelevant.
 
Scotimp said:
Yes, but this is not a normal scenario, for the following reasons:

a) no club will ever do that; however, Bolton are in an almost unique position in this respect, because they will probably have significant (i.e. abnormal) transfer funds available in January compared with what any given lower league club usually has. That means the playing field is not level prior to and post the January transfer window, and by a significant margin. Luke is exactly right.

b) No club will ever do this either, so it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
a) No club will sign a few good players in January???? Clubs regularly sign 5 or 6 players in January!! Especially when they're in a relegation battle. And what if a club gets bought between September and December by a rich owner who pumps money in. Imagine we get the rich investor we're looking for in October and he triples our budget in time for January. Which would give us abnormal transfer funds for a lower league club. Is this suddenly unfair on everyone else in the league and we shouldn't be allowed to play? No, of course not.

b) No club will be forced to sell their best players in January? Ever? And play a team with a lot of changes post January? Ok. This is what some people think Bury, Bolton, Birmingham etc. should have been forced to do last season when they realised their were money problems. It happens.

Bolton won't be allowed to, for example, sign Andrade for £2mil in October and play him in October. Just like any other club. They wait until January before he could play.

Bolton won't be allowed to loan players outside of the window and play them. They'll have to wait until the player can be registered. Just like any other club.

Bolton will be allowed to sign free agents just like any other club at these times.

Football isn't a level playing field! Just think, Accrington got to play us whilst Bolger was s******g himself. Hopefully he's better for Rotherham. Is that unfair on Rotherham? No it's just luck. That's football not being a level playing field week to week, never mind when teams can sign different players.

In this Bolton case, we're just on the wrong side of luck because we play them later on. We'll just have to prove that we have the better team no matter who they put out by playing to the best of our abilities and winning.

(Also, weren't Portsmouth in a similar situation just a couple of seasons ago? Perhaps this Bolton case isn't as unique as you think.)
 
Imps2018 said:
a) No club will sign a few good players in January???? Clubs regularly sign 5 or 6 players in January!! Especially when they're in a relegation battle. And what if a club gets bought between September and December by a rich owner who pumps money in. Imagine we get the rich investor we're looking for in October and he triples our budget in time for January. Which would give us abnormal transfer funds for a lower league club. Is this suddenly unfair on everyone else in the league and we shouldn't be allowed to play? No, of course not.

b) No club will be forced to sell their best players in January? Ever? And play a team with a lot of changes post January? Ok. This is what some people think Bury, Bolton, Birmingham etc. should have been forced to do last season when they realised their were money problems. It happens.

Bolton won't be allowed to, for example, sign Andrade for £2mil in October and play him in October. Just like any other club. They wait until January before he could play.

Bolton won't be allowed to loan players outside of the window and play them. They'll have to wait until the player can be registered. Just like any other club.

Bolton will be allowed to sign free agents just like any other club at these times.

Football isn't a level playing field! Just think, Accrington got to play us whilst Bolger was s******g himself. Hopefully he's better for Rotherham. Is that unfair on Rotherham? No it's just luck. That's football not being a level playing field week to week, never mind when teams can sign different players.

In this Bolton case, we're just on the wrong side of luck because we play them later on. We'll just have to prove that we have the better team no matter who they put out by playing to the best of our abilities and winning.

(Also, weren't Portsmouth in a similar situation just a couple of seasons ago? Perhaps this Bolton case isn't as unique as you think.)
Click to expand...

Your comparing the uncomparable.
If we wanted to field our youth team against Accrington last week because Danny thought that although it was the opening day of the season he wanted to give his first choice eleven an extra weeks rest because we had a tough game at Rotherham this week then he would of been perfectly entitled to do this. It would never happen but he could of done it. Where as Bolton who have got themselves into a dire financial situation through overspending can now only field youth team players in competitive League 1 fixtures, they have no choice. Great for teams playing them at the moment, should be an easy three points, but if they do get buyer and then have the choice of 700 + non contracted players to bring in and significantly strengthen their team then I'm afraid the earlier games where most teams would have gained a relatively easy 3 points would not equate to a level playing field over a whole season for the rest of the divisions teams.
 
Pleased there are going to be 700+ non contract players capable of strengthening a L1 level team, we will have no problems boosting our defence when we need rb cover in September...
 
Imps2018 said:
a) No club will sign a few good players in January????

b) No club will be forced to sell their best players in January?
Click to expand...
This is not at all what you said:

a) you said a team of quality players, not a few;

b) you said all their players, not their best players.

Completely different scenarios with completely different outcomes.
 
Scotimp said:
This is not at all what you said:

a) you said a team of quality players, not a few;

b) you said all their players, not their best players.

Completely different scenarios with completely different outcomes.
Click to expand...
Oh for god's sake.

Sorry for respecting your intelligence. Next time I will spell it out word for word.
 
clanfordimp said:
Your comparing the uncomparable.
If we wanted to field our youth team against Accrington last week because Danny thought that although it was the opening day of the season he wanted to give his first choice eleven an extra weeks rest because we had a tough game at Rotherham this week then he would of been perfectly entitled to do this. It would never happen but he could of done it. Where as Bolton who have got themselves into a dire financial situation through overspending can now only field youth team players in competitive League 1 fixtures, they have no choice. Great for teams playing them at the moment, should be an easy three points, but if they do get buyer and then have the choice of 700 + non contracted players to bring in and significantly strengthen their team then I'm afraid the earlier games where most teams would have gained a relatively easy 3 points would not equate to a level playing field over a whole season for the rest of the divisions teams.
Click to expand...
So what do you want? Bolton not to be allowed to sign any players? Even when their finances are sorted and the signings are within the rules? How's that a level playing field?

These 700+ non contracted players can sign for anyone. They're not being blocked from signing for us or Wimbledon or Accrington or anyone. In fact everyone else has had a longer chance to sign them and chosen not to.

Imagine a club gets a bout of food poisoning throughout the whole squad and has to play youths. Their opponents get the easy 3 points. Is this unfair on every other team? No, it's just how it goes. The club got themselves in that position by not cooking the chicken for lunch properly. They're not forced to play that youth team against everyone else to level the playing field.

It'll never be level anyway. You've got form, injuries, rivalries, attendance, league position and everything else that changes performances week to week that means clubs never face the same opponents. All you can do is your own job and hope it's enough. Signings throughout the season are just another one of these. Who's to say the signings work out? They may make them weaker.
 
I'd go for a double demotion in event of these financial collapses.
So would always be a worse outcome than keeping solvent.

So would have sent both Bolton & Bury into National League.
If they'd failed to get out of the mess they're in by end of this season, then down twice again into Northern Premier.

But EFL are ineffectual (politest word I could think of) so both clubs will doubtless play this League One season and get enough points to still be in it at the end and no effective penalty will have happened.

And crucially no lessons learrned.
 
Another unlevel part of the playing field I like, is when a player gets sent off against your team, but is then possibly suspended against your rivals. There are myriad random chance factors each game. Virtually every game could be won, drawn or lost based on chances created and chances missed. Might be why it is so interesting.
 
nlondonimp said:
Pleased there are going to be 700+ non contract players capable of strengthening a L1 level team, we will have no problems boosting our defence when we need rb cover in September...
Click to expand...

There are in the region of 700 players released from their contracts each season.....didn't you know that?
Non of which may be a right back.
 
Imps2018 said:
So what do you want? Bolton not to be allowed to sign any players? Even when their finances are sorted and the signings are within the rules? How's that a level playing field?

These 700+ non contracted players can sign for anyone. They're not being blocked from signing for us or Wimbledon or Accrington or anyone. In fact everyone else has had a longer chance to sign them and chosen not to.

Imagine a club gets a bout of food poisoning throughout the whole squad and has to play youths. Their opponents get the easy 3 points. Is this unfair on every other team? No, it's just how it goes. The club got themselves in that position by not cooking the chicken for lunch properly. They're not forced to play that youth team against everyone else to level the playing field.

It'll never be level anyway. You've got form, injuries, rivalries, attendance, league position and everything else that changes performances week to week that means clubs never face the same opponents. All you can do is your own job and hope it's enough. Signings throughout the season are just another one of these. Who's to say the signings work out? They may make them weaker.
Click to expand...
Imps2018 said:
So what do you want? Bolton not to be allowed to sign any players? Even when their finances are sorted and the signings are within the rules? How's that a level playing field?

These 700+ non contracted players can sign for anyone. They're not being blocked from signing for us or Wimbledon or Accrington or anyone. In fact everyone else has had a longer chance to sign them and chosen not to.

Imagine a club gets a bout of food poisoning throughout the whole squad and has to play youths. Their opponents get the easy 3 points. Is this unfair on every other team? No, it's just how it goes. The club got themselves in that position by not cooking the chicken for lunch properly. They're not forced to play that youth team against everyone else to level the playing field.

It'll never be level anyway. You've got form, injuries, rivalries, attendance, league position and everything else that changes performances week to week that means clubs never face the same opponents. All you can do is your own job and hope it's enough. Signings throughout the season are just another one of these. Who's to say the signings work out? They may make them weaker.[/QUOTE

We are talking about a specific club that has got itself into a financial mess due to the fact they were probably trying to buy their way back to the premiership.
If a team did manage to come down with food poisoning they would probably get that game postponed and rescheduled to play when all of the players had recovered because they are a bona fide team with a legitimate reason for not being able to play that match.
Bolton don't have a choice, they are playing a youth team because they are the only players they've got. They've been over paying players that they couldn't afford. Now they cant pay any of their players or their coaching staff or their office staff or their gatemen or their stewards or their pie supplier or the company that brings the bog rolls or the electricity or anything.
They are bolloxed until someone starts pouring millions of pounds into a ship that has already sunk. Good luck to them if they get an investor and become a bona fide club again but this situation cannot be left much longer, it's a joke.
Click to expand...
 
Bolton field a team of u23 players today. The EFL need to sort this mess out, they are a laughing stock. Their incompetence is affecting the potential result of this years league standings.
It is completing unfair for a few teams to play a massively weakened Bolton team and pick up easy points and then the rest have to face a full strength team of mainly ex championship players.

Ridiculous!!!!!
 
cdhIMP said:
Bolton field a team of u23 players today. The EFL need to sort this mess out, they are a laughing stock. Their incompetence is affecting the potential result of this years league standings.
It is completing unfair for a few teams to play a massively weakened Bolton team and pick up easy points and then the rest have to face a full strength team of mainly ex championship players.

Ridiculous!!!!!
Click to expand...
cdhIMP said:
Bolton field a team of u23 players today. The EFL need to sort this mess out, they are a laughing stock. Their incompetence is affecting the potential result of this years league standings.
It is completing unfair for a few teams to play a massively weakened Bolton team and pick up easy points and then the rest have to face a full strength team of mainly ex championship players.

Ridiculous!!!!!
Click to expand...


In other terms not a level playing field.

BTW there was a good interview with the Accy chairman on the subject of League finances including Bolton and Bury on Sky Sports earlier today. Hate to admit I warmed to him a bit.
 
SalfordImp said:
In other terms not a level playing field.

BTW there was a good interview with the Accy chairman on the subject of League finances including Bolton and Bury on Sky Sports earlier today. Hate to admit I warmed to him a bit.
Click to expand...
Yeah Mr Holt was really good on soccer Saturday, as always speaking sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.