|
Post by thevalleybest on May 3, 2019 15:01:50 GMT
Brentford granted a win,I cant see Bolton being a club for much longer.
|
|
|
Post by 1978sussex on May 3, 2019 17:27:58 GMT
Looks like their could be getting 20 points deduction from next season
|
|
|
Post by essexaddick on May 3, 2019 17:30:41 GMT
I don't think it is time for anyone to gloat. There but the grace etc etc. Remember we rely on one man, our current owner, to keep our club afloat including paying wages. If he suddenly decided enough was enough we could easily be in exactly the same position.
|
|
|
Post by bexleyboy on May 3, 2019 19:17:42 GMT
Bolton sold 200,000 worth of season tickets last week but no one knows where the money gone ... enough enough EFL get your heads out your arse for gods sake
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on May 3, 2019 20:04:54 GMT
To be fair this situation is not easy for the EFL, but yet again their decision making appears to be entirely arbitrary. I guess they know that it doesn't matter, but why 1-0? I recall Legia Warsaw, having beaten Celtic 4-1 in Poland and then 2-0 in Glasgow, being knocked out of the Champions League immediately before the group stages because Celtic were awarded the second leg 3-0 (and won the tie on away goals) because Legia Warsaw had committed an innocent, technical and completely irrelevant administrative error in 'filing' their squad for the tie. I had assumed that 3-0 is some kind of standard in this situation. Be outrageous if not.
An alternative sometimes used when a team is unable to fulfil their fixtures is to expunge their results from the record so that, in this case, the League table is recalibrated with each team 'playing' just 44 games. More contentious, perhaps, but more logical, it might be argued.
It's obvious, of course, that the EFL will be very relieved that it simply doesn't matter to either Bolton or Brentford how they deal with this missing fixture enabling them to be somewhat cavalier. In some ways its a shame it didn't matter. It would have been interesting to see how the EFL would have handled the situation.
The dilemma which might have been present here, combined with the possibility of a points deduction for Bolton next season, shows just how irresponsible the players were to strike. Freedom of speech and ability to act does not mean we are not responsible for the implications of what we say or the consequences of our actions. The players' action could have created chaos in the Championship this season and may well severely damage Bolton next season. For what? How has it helped them? Is playing a game of football really so tough?
In my view they've behaved disgracefully, with no consideration of the consequences of their actions or any respect or care for those who might have been impacted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2019 20:28:24 GMT
Nobody comes out of this situation looking good.
I would defend the right of the players to refuse to play if they have repeatedly not been paid on time. But when they have played this season they have not performed well enough to give Bolton any chance of staying in the Championship.
Granted somebody has to be relegated, but the general view is that Bolton on the pitch have been p*ss poor for most of the season.
I've heard that the "new" owner Bassini is still insisting the Club is now his, and he has given the EFL everything they asked for - directly contradicting what they have said. The guy seems to be seriously off in a fantasy world of his own.
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on May 4, 2019 7:34:01 GMT
@lardiman
I would also defend the right of the players to take action if, on a regular basis, their contracts have not being honoured. Professional football is a job, like any other. However, I strongly believe that their ‘rights’ come with some responsibilities. They are accountable for the consequences of their actions. The fact that their actions may be the result of somebody’s else’s actions, in this case the miserable Ken Anderson, does not absolve them from responsibility for the consequences of those actions.
The fact that Bolton will no longer play their fixture against Brentford is the direct result of action taken by the players. This action could have resulted in a team not being promoted that might otherwise have been so, or a team avoiding relegation etc. It is now being suggested that Bolton could suffer a significant points deduction next season. That potential consequence is a direct result of the action taken by the players.
In taking their action the players showed a complete lack of respect, or care, for the integrity of the League, for the fans of Bolton Wanderers and of other clubs, and for the players they ply their trade with and against.
If they wanted to make a point there are other things they might have done. They might for, example, have refused to train, though I recognise that would have simply have been a symbolic gesture. They might have ‘worked to rule’, so that any players with niggles or minor injuries refused to play, etc. Instead, they chose to throw their toys out of the pram and down tools completely without any thought to the wider consequences.
If I was a Bolton Wanderers fan I’d be very disappointed that the club has been relegated to League One again, but I’d be trying to be positive, focusing on winning promotion and hoping for a decent owner. However, the selfish and irresponsible action taken by the players may well have derailed the former, at least for next season, and may because of that make the club more difficult to sell. I’d be disgusted with them, not least since these are the same players who ‘kiss the badge’ and claim to ‘love the club and it’s fans’, when it suits them.
I doubt that you’ll agree, but I believe strongly that there is an important principle here. To be a bit provocative, fans who have protested and or boycotted with the objective of hurting the club or/or making it unmanageable, are equally responsible for any consequences that follow from those actions. They can’t absolve themselves from responsibility by saying ‘I did it because of Duchatelet and therefore it’s his fault.’
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 8:34:46 GMT
Totally disagree that it was the players fault. It is the fault of the owner not paying the players, not just once, but a number of times. Let us not forget that the staff at Bolton didn't get paid either. The staff are not paid large wages and have bills to pay. Everyone has the right to take direct action. If that means not playing a football match, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by jonkool on May 4, 2019 13:09:28 GMT
The situation at Bolton over the past 15 years or so should be used as an object lesson to students of business management.
The Allardyce years (the Curbs years too) when the club punched above its weight; the subsequent decline when an owner subsidised huge annual losses; the takeover by new owners who hadn’t the financial clout to continue to fund ongoing losses in a vain attempt to return to the Prem; the attempted sale to a prospective purchaser who clearly cannot meet a fit and proper requirement.
We can also add to this sorry tale the EFL who bottled out of their sustainability regulations; players with a sense of entitlement; and a fan base demanding a fairy godmother pays out money the club cannot afford to return the club to former glories.
If ever the tv and streaming businesses start to lose their audience then we may end up with 4 divisions of Bolton’s unless the EFL/Prem and clubs rapidly re-think their business models particularly in terms of high wage long contract assets who become liabilities such as Rodwell at Sunderland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 14:02:51 GMT
@lardiman I would also defend the right of the players to take action if, on a regular basis, their contracts have not being honoured. Professional football is a job, like any other. However, I strongly believe that their ‘rights’ come with some responsibilities. They are accountable for the consequences of their actions. The fact that their actions may be the result of somebody’s else’s actions, in this case the miserable Ken Anderson, does not absolve them from responsibility for the consequences of those actions. The fact that Bolton will no longer play their fixture against Brentford is the direct result of action taken by the players. This action could have resulted in a team not being promoted that might otherwise have been so, or a team avoiding relegation etc. It is now being suggested that Bolton could suffer a significant points deduction next season. That potential consequence is a direct result of the action taken by the players. In taking their action the players showed a complete lack of respect, or care, for the integrity of the League, for the fans of Bolton Wanderers and of other clubs, and for the players they ply their trade with and against. If they wanted to make a point there are other things they might have done. They might for, example, have refused to train, though I recognise that would have simply have been a symbolic gesture. They might have ‘worked to rule’, so that any players with niggles or minor injuries refused to play, etc. Instead, they chose to throw their toys out of the pram and down tools completely without any thought to the wider consequences. If I was a Bolton Wanderers fan I’d be very disappointed that the club has been relegated to League One again, but I’d be trying to be positive, focusing on winning promotion and hoping for a decent owner. However, the selfish and irresponsible action taken by the players may well have derailed the former, at least for next season, and may because of that make the club more difficult to sell. I’d be disgusted with them, not least since these are the same players who ‘kiss the badge’ and claim to ‘love the club and it’s fans’, when it suits them. I doubt that you’ll agree, but I believe strongly that there is an important principle here. To be a bit provocative, fans who have protested and or boycotted with the objective of hurting the club or/or making it unmanageable, are equally responsible for any consequences that follow from those actions. They can’t absolve themselves from responsibility by saying ‘I did it because of Duchatelet and therefore it’s his fault.’ I accept the principle of equal responsibility - between the Club and striking players in the case of Bolton, and between Duchatelet and boycotting fans in the case of Charlton. But in both cases there is a cause and an effect. An action, and a reaction. Bolton players did not go on strike the instant that their pay became overdue. Charlton fans did not boycott the instant that Duchatelet began changing the way that CAFC was run. If the Bolton players had not been paid late several times (along with other staff who work at the Club) then they would not have gone on strike. If Charlton had not been relegated in 2016 in the humiliating manner that it was, and had the Club not insulted the intelligence of supporters with blatant lies concerning the appointment of head coaches, thousands of Charlton fans would not be boycotting now.
If I may now be a bit provocative... By your principle, the RAF is equally responsible for the civilian casualties of bombing raids over Europe as the Luftwaffe are responsible for the civilian casualties of the Blitz. But if Germany had not adopted the policy of pulverising British cities from the air in 1940, it is extremely unlikely that German cities would have been similarly bombed. Yet what were we supposed to do during WW2 in response to the intensive bombing of London and other cities; Make a symbolic gesture? Allow the enemy to go unpunished, risking morale and inviting defeat? Or do something that was going to hurt the enemy, and make them understand their chosen actions had a heavy price attached. Whether there are hundreds of thousands of lives at stake or just some inconvenience to the football authorities, the principle is the same.
The owners of Bolton Wanderers and Roland Duchatelet should have considered their actions and chosen a different path. They cannot claim they had no way of knowing the consequences of actions they chose to take, any more than a striking player or a boycotting fan can avoid equal responsibility for the way that they decide to react. Bolton's players were reacting to unjust treatment, in the same way that Charlton's boycotting fans were. If somebody hurts you and gets away with it, they will just hurt you again and again. But even if you can't stop them hurting you, you can still hurt them back. They might think twice next time. Or at the very least you may draw the attention of others to the injustice which you have reacted to. If Bolton's players had just sucked it up and played on without pay, would the EFL and others in the Football community be paying even 10% of the attention they are now to the total mess that BWFC has become?
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on May 5, 2019 6:21:00 GMT
@lardiman
Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply. In my view this is an interesting and important topic. In all honesty, I’m not sure whether we are operating with a different ‘value system’ or are debating at cross-purposes.
At no point did I say that the players and owner at Bolton bear equal responsibility for what has happened at the club. Moreover, the ‘principle’ I believe in does not imply that ‘the RAF was equally responsible for the civilian casualties of bombing raids over Europe as the Luftwaffe was responsible for the civilian casualties of the Blitz’, at least not in the way you mean it.
My comment about the strike action taken by Bolton’s players can be broken down into two parts.
First, the principle at stake is that we are all responsible for the actions we take and for the consequences of those actions. This means taking those potential consequences into account before deciding to act. This is true whatever the circumstances. It is your prerogative to disagree with this, of course, but if you do then I sense we are operating with fundamentally different value systems. That’s fair enough, obviously.
Second, having considered the potential consequences of our actions we then need to decide whether to act. That’s a judgement. In turn, sometimes that judgement might come down to our ‘values and beliefs’ or it might be based on a more analytical, forensic calculation.
When Bomber Command decided to bomb German cities in WW2 it did so knowing there would be heavy civilian casualties. The RAF was clearly responsible for those casualties, not the Luftwaffe, but the view was taken that the action was necessary and justified. The same applied to the Americans, of course. They were responsible for the devastation caused by the bombs they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but took the view that the action was necessary in order to bring the war to an end. That was the judgement they made. We are all entitled to our view about whether that was the right or wrong judgement, but either way it does not change the fact that the Americans were responsible.
My point is that when Bolton’s players decided to take strike action they had a responsibility to consider the likely or potential consequences of that action. Having considered the consequences they ought then to have thought about whether it was right to act. To continue your military analogy, we might think of many of these consequences as collateral damage. The actions of Bolton’s players had the potential to hurt many ‘innocent civilians’, as I noted above.
The question then is whether that was justified? I simply don’t believe it was, not least since the strike action had little or no chance of changing the owners’s behaviour and nor did it seek to protect an important value or principle. Its motivation, it seems, was simply to make the players ‘feel better’. For this reason, I continue to view their action as selfish and irresponsible.
It would be entirely reasonable to disagree with this judgement, obviously, but to do so means believing that the pursuit of the players’ objectives was worth, and hence justified, the collateral damage their action had the potential to cause. This has nothing to do with Ken Anderson and nor can responsibility be ‘laid off’ onto him, even though his failure to fund the club is the root cause of the situation. That’s my perspective anyway.
This principle, if you want to call it that, doesn’t imply weakness or a reluctance to stand up for your own interests or for what’s right. It means being measured and proportionate in the way you respond. It means being conscious of consequences and collateral damage. In military terms, it might mean precision bombing which hits military targets only.
In truth, I suspect Bolton’s players simply didn’t think holistically about what they were doing. They probably didn’t think about collateral damage. It’s the shame the PFA seem incapable of more mature leadership. They were fully aware of what was going on at the club because they’d intervened earlier in the season.
Just my perspective.
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 5, 2019 6:37:55 GMT
I agree with all of that Mundell, however, I suspect that the players and their agents believed that they could blackmail someone (Anderson or the new chap) into paying them their outstanding wages.
I have no real insight but it is being reported that’s Anderson took c. £600k out of the club in consultancy fees. If that is true, and if that money hasn’t all been spent, some of it could have been put back into the club (even as a directors loan) and paid the outstanding wages.
We need to remember that history shows us that Footballers and their Agents are amongst the more arrogant people on the planet.
If it were me I would relegate the club to League Two or the Conference and then I would insist that the players are forced to honour their contracts and play at the level they are responsible for putting the club where they are. I would also consider letting the club sack any of them for failing to play. I’m not aware of the rules regarding trade union action but I don’t remember hearing about the ballot process being adhered to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 7:18:36 GMT
...My point is that when Bolton’s players decided to take strike action they had a responsibility to consider the likely or potential consequences of that action. Having considered the consequences they ought then to have thought about whether it was right to act. To continue your military analogy, we might think of many of these consequences as collateral damage. The actions of Bolton’s players had the potential to hurt many ‘innocent civilians’, as I noted above. The question then is whether that was justified? I simply don’t believe it was, not least since the strike action had little or no chance of changing the owners’s behaviour and nor did it seek to protect an important value or principle. Its motivation, it seems, was simply to make the players ‘feel better’. For this reason, I continue to view their action as selfish and irresponsible. It would be entirely reasonable to disagree with this judgement, obviously, but to do so means believing that the pursuit of the players’ objectives was worth, and hence justified, the collateral damage their action had the potential to cause. This has nothing to do with Ken Anderson and nor can responsibility be ‘laid off’ onto him, even though his failure to fund the club is the root cause of the situation. That’s my perspective anyway... Thanks in turn Mundell for your reply. The only parts of it which I do disagree with are the two that I have highlighted in red above. Firstly, I believe the strike action did seek to protect an important value / principle.The principle is that the owner of Bolton cannot mistreat employees of the Club by repeatedly not meeting his obligation to pay them on time for the work that they do, and expect to get away with it without drawing serious consequences. Employees not being paid is an extremely grave matter in my opinion. I worked for a company years ago which repeatedly paid me late over a period of six months. I did not strike, but eventually I resigned over the issue. I was fortunate that my personal circumstances at the time allowed me that option. Many of the workers at BWFC probably don't have the option to walk away. Striking was never going to fix the issue, but neither would working to rule or any other response. The players and other workers have no power to secure the pay that they are owed. And why should employees carry on working at all if they have not been paid for work already carried out in good faith? The players and employees at BWFC don't have a precision weapon available to them, in order to strike their target with no collateral damage. Secondly, I believe the damage caused by the actions of the players does have something to do with Ken Anderson - as those actions were a direct response to his repeated failure to meet his obligations. I accept that the players should take responsibility for the consequences of their strike, but I do not accept that Anderson shares none of that responsibility at all. The only remaining question is was the reaction of Bolton players out of proportion to the actions that sparked them? If I have understood you correctly you believe they were. I believe they were not.
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on May 5, 2019 8:25:23 GMT
Some very interesting posts above - nothing to add to the Bolton situation but would like to state that this drive to "do something" in the face of provocation has a local application. Those fans who seek to hold an anti-establishment perspective and attack decisions and the ownership at our club might consider two key facts: 1) an attack on any part of CAFC is an attack on the whole club - a concerted campaign to trash the brand in the national media achieves very little in the bigger picture. 2) our current owner clearly isn't into wasting millions paying agents and players who do not perform. Mistakes have been made but half of the £10M spent on the squad additions has featured in a successful team this season. And the objective has always been to develop talent, and then sell top players to help cover the operating losses.
Poor execution when building a squad and managing the team saw us relegated three years back, which in turn triggered both protests and a major drop in ST sales and the gates. But all of that can and has been fixed now. We've not had any staff or players going unpaid but we have had fans boycotting... And airing their stories on social media.
The irony is that the fixes at the club have taken place irrespective of the mood on message boards. And that the crowds have grown virtually every month, no matter what gimmick CARD came up with. 12,400 turned up yesterday and ideally 14-15,000 next time as we make our journey to Wembley.
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on May 5, 2019 9:15:06 GMT
Thanks again for your reply @lardiman
Just a couple of observations.
First, clearly, ensuring that employers pay employees the salary and benefits they are due is a very important principle and, when necessary, should be robustly defended.
However, I don’t believe defence of that principle was behind the action of the players at Bolton Wanderers. The role of the PFA is key here, as I noted above. Bolton isn’t the only club facing cash flow problems and the players at Bury and Macclesfield haven’t been being paid either. Surely, if this was about the defence of an important principle they should have gone on strike too?
Of course, it’s obvious why the players at Bury and Macclesfield didn’t take strike action. Bury have been chasing promotion from League Two and Macclesfield have been battling against relegation. In this case, principles only go so far, it seems.
The difference at Bolton obviously is that the club had already been relegated. The players had already failed. In their minds, therefore, not playing didn’t matter. In that sense, it was a somewhat empty protest. However, what they failed to do, in my view, was to take account of the wider consequences of their actions. The collateral damage. Some guidance from the PFA wouldn’t have gone amiss.
Second, it’s possible that a part of the difference between your perspective and mine relates to semantics. Ken Anderson’s actions are the root cause of the issues at Bolton. If the integrity of the League had been undermined his actions would have been the root cause of that. Similarly, if Bolton receive a points deduction next season.
That’s clear, but what’s also clear, is that the players are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. They can’t say, ‘Yes, the club have received a points deduction as a result of the Brentford game not having been played, but that’s not our problem. We have no responsibility for that. The root cause is Ken Anderson.’ Such a view is not only irresponsible, it is anarchic if applied more broadly.
Finally, you’re right, I think the players were fundamentally wrong to take strike action in the circumstances. I believe their action was shallow, selfish and irresponsible. It achieved nothing beyond making them feel they were ‘doing something’ and giving them a day off, while disregarding its potential impact on others.
|
|
|
Post by bexleyboy on May 8, 2019 10:32:02 GMT
Been placed into administration this morning ...
|
|
|
Post by 1978sussex on May 8, 2019 10:44:40 GMT
They got 12 points deduction
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 8, 2019 15:21:17 GMT
They got 12 points deduction Is that before they receive a suitable punishment for failing to fulfill their fixtures? I do hope so!
|
|
|
Post by 1978sussex on May 8, 2019 15:42:55 GMT
They be starting new seasan -12 points
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 17:15:33 GMT
They be starting new seasan -12 points I think it will be good for them in the end. Nothing (negative) boosts team morale and brings everybody together like a hefty points deduction.
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 8, 2019 18:07:11 GMT
They be starting new seasan -12 points Unless they get another -18 for failing to field a team. As has been said, it was very fortunate that they were playing a mid table side. Imagine if their missed fixture had been with Derby who then ended the season in 7th after 45 games. The action needs to be so severely punished that no group of players would do the same thing again. If they start on -30, for example, it will almost ensure that those players will be relegated again and even that doesn’t seem enough for me!
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on May 8, 2019 18:31:21 GMT
What a mess. A complete and utter mess. Bolton’s first problem is to find a new owner. It seems they can’t give the club away so it’s not obvious that what will be left of the club post administration will be any more attractive than it is today. Unfortunately, this simply highlights how unattractive clubs like Bolton (and Charlton) are given today’s football economics.
Two observations which relate to the discussion earlier in this thread. First, if administration is the best option now available to the club’s owners, it confirms that the players weren’t paid because the money to pay them simply wasn’t available. Refusing to play wasn’t going to change that. Second, under the controversial football creditors rule, the players will now get paid before there is any money to pay the local butcher, baker, and candlestick maker. The football creditors rule is controversial for a reason.
If as a result of the administration process non football creditors receive less than 25 pence in the pound then the points deduction will be increased by three points to fifteen. Against that background, any additional points deduction for the failure to play the Brentford game will begin to look like gratuitous violence.
|
|
|
Post by bexleyboy on May 8, 2019 19:02:12 GMT
Well Blackpool been given two weeks to find a buyer as they have been in administration for sometime
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 8, 2019 20:04:53 GMT
Well Blackpool been given two weeks to find a buyer as they have been in administration for sometime They will only, ever, stop giving them more if the club stop pretending to have another plan. If the alternative to ‘pretending’ it will fix itself is to kill off a club then they will always be reluctant to take action. Not only would this destroy an old club, it would leave the league one team short which does not have an obvious solution. The football creditors would, for the first time ever get their money knocked. The players under contract would, literally, lose their livelihoods and the EFL don’t have the bollocks to deal with Blackpool or Coventry what chances that they will kill a club. They even back pedalled of FFP that might have made these occurrences a thing of the past. Bolton will survive, somehow, as will the next club to over spend with someone else’s money, and the one after that, and the one after that. No one will ever dare kill a club off. When Palace ‘blackmailed’ a state owned bank to sell it Selhurst Park at well below it’s market value to save it from extension the writing was on the walls. No one dares upset football fans.
|
|
|
Post by jonkool on May 8, 2019 20:06:50 GMT
The craziness of modern day football financing has been with us now for many years since the TV Monet has flowed into the Prem.
However, maybe EFL clubs are starting to run out of road with a mountain of debts and new lunatic owners no longer prepared to stand up and fund a failing vanity project.
More big names may have to follow these two giants of the 1950s into Administration. Don’t forget Eddie Davies wrote off huge debts when he sold Bolton to the Holdsworth consortium!
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on May 8, 2019 20:09:30 GMT
The receivers at Blackpool have set a deadline of May 15th for potential buyers to register their bids. Be interesting to see who, if anyone, comes forward. No idea what happens if nobody does. Liquidation?
I don’t fully understand the situation at Blackpool. It’s complex. I think the club owes Valeri Belokon the balance of the court settlement against the Oystons and will need to sell assets (the hotel, I believe) in order to fund that. A complication many potential owners might prefer to do without.
|
|
|
Post by jonkool on May 8, 2019 20:29:07 GMT
The receivers at Blackpool have set a deadline of May 15th for potential buyers to register their bids. Be interesting to see who, if anyone, comes forward. No idea what happens if nobody does. Liquidation? I don’t fully understand the situation at Blackpool. It’s complex. I think the club owes Valeri Belokon the balance of the court settlement against the Oystons and will need to sell assets (the hotel, I believe) in order to fund that. A complication many potential owners might prefer to do without. Yes all very messy and why be involved with extra problems when you can throw good money down the toilet with far less complications 😉 Liquidation is the only option if Receivers cannot attract a buyer for the trade. They will sell off all the remaining assets to the highest bidders and pay out this to creditors AFTER they take their exorbitant fees. The fans will need to consider an AFC Blackpool playing in tier 8 copying the model of AFC Wimbledon. All very sad given that it isn’t so many years since Olly led them into the Premiership.
|
|
|
Post by 1978sussex on May 10, 2019 13:45:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 1978sussex on May 13, 2019 15:01:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigandy99 on May 13, 2019 15:03:22 GMT
12 points is a lot to make up if you want promotion
|
|