| Bury v2.0 - Macclesfield deducted 10 points 01:55 - Dec 21 with 2429 views | TimTtam |
The EFL made the decision to deduct 6 points (with 4 suspended) due to Macclesfield not paying players & staff, and for them calling off the Crewe match. It was questionable, since Bolton were handed a 0 point deduction (5 suspended) for calling off the Brentford and Doncaster matches in separate seasons.
A matter of hours later, the EFL called off the Plymouth game due to safety concerns for fans. This decision was made 15 hours before kickoff, meaning some Plymouth fans had already made the long trip up. Macc asked to have the game played behind closed doors, but the EFL refused their request. They then proceeded to punish Macc again (it will be the 4 suspended points) for failing to play the fixture (even though it was the EFL who called it off).
The ironic thing about this is that the EFL said they declined the request to play the match, because they believe football matches need to have fans watching them. But the Leasing.com Trophy has crowds of roughly 400 (I'm guessing, because they often don't release the attendance figures).
The EFL is not fit for purpose. |  |
| |  |
| Bury v2.0 - Macclesfield deducted 10 points on 14:00 - Dec 21 with 2307 views | Badlands |
Why the attack on the EFL?
Macclesfield has been un trouble for a long time and this season were lucky not to have been kicked out of the league already.
I believe the zero capacity notice was issued by their local council earlier and EFL waited for the club to convince the council to overturn the decision ... it didn't.
The EFL appear to have acted in accordance with their rules. My gripe is they have been too lenient and clubs like Villa benefited from EFL tardiness. |  |
| |
| Bury v2.0 - Macclesfield deducted 10 points on 14:28 - Dec 21 with 2260 views | TimTtam |
| Bury v2.0 - Macclesfield deducted 10 points on 14:00 - Dec 21 by Badlands |
Why the attack on the EFL?
Macclesfield has been un trouble for a long time and this season were lucky not to have been kicked out of the league already.
I believe the zero capacity notice was issued by their local council earlier and EFL waited for the club to convince the council to overturn the decision ... it didn't.
The EFL appear to have acted in accordance with their rules. My gripe is they have been too lenient and clubs like Villa benefited from EFL tardiness. |
Because the EFL are not fit for purpose. There's no consistency in their decision making. As you say they are lenient with the 'bigger clubs'. Hence Bolton received no points deduction for calling off 2 games, yet Macc got 6 points for 1 game. And then FFP/stadium selling in regards to Derby, Villa, Reading etc.
Why would the EFL hire an independent body to decide on a punishment for Bolton, and then once that body made their decision, appeal the decision?
I'm not sure how much you know about the Bolton/Bury/Macc situations, but it's been a shambles by the EFL. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
