BaaLocks

It is also worth considering it has never fallen later than the 29th March date when our own relegation was confirmed and despite the Covid affected 2021 season never even in the same month as we were relegated.
TBF, for us, 29th March also coincided with the last point we got that season (home to Fulham) and only the third time that season we scored more than one goal in a game.
Half a chance is way too optimistic in my opinion.

As a friend said to me over the weekend "Norwich are going to take your record this year" I wanted to suggest the initiation of St Claude's Day, the date on which no club can undertake (or equal) our points tally of eleven points. Named in honour of a player more symbolic of our lack of preparedness, ability, and commitment than any other (a statement of recognition in itself) in that 07/08 season the race is now on to predict on what day it will fall this season.
In previous years St Claude's Day has fallen on the following weekends, last season's Covid affected schedule aside it has only three times made it past New Years Day.
2020/21: 4th March (Sheffield United)
2019/20: 22nd December (Watford)
2018/19: 27th February (Huddersfield)
2017/18: 13th December (Swansea)
2016/17: 19th December (Sunderland)
2015/16: 18th January (Aston Villa)
2014/15: 29th December (Leicester)
2013/14: 26th December (Sunderland)
2012/13: 2nd January (QPR)
2011/12: 31st December (Blackburn)
2010/11: 27th November (Wolves and West Ham)
2009/10: 19th December (Portsmouth)
2008/9: 8th November (Spurs)
So, on what day will St Claude's Day fall on this year? I predict it will be the fourth time it has made it past New Years Day but I still think last week in February our record will be safe for one more season.
 

2021/22: 23rd January (Burnley)
2020/21: 4th March (Sheffield United)
2019/20: 22nd December (Watford)
2018/19: 27th February (Huddersfield)
2017/18: 13th December (Swansea)
2016/17: 19th December (Sunderland)
2015/16: 18th January (Aston Villa)
2014/15: 29th December (Leicester)
2013/14: 26th December (Sunderland)
2012/13: 2nd January (QPR)
2011/12: 31st December (Blackburn)
2010/11: 27th November (Wolves and West Ham)
2009/10: 19th December (Portsmouth)
2008/9: 8th November (Spurs)

And the precedent that is set should a claim be paid - every club in the division could claim based on whether or not they weren't promoted, didn't make the play offs, got relegated, finished below us in the league, lost attendances because we were above them so less people came to the game because they thought we would beat them. Clubs that we knocked out of the cups, players who didn't get win bonuses, clubs who claimed they would have been on Sky instead of us, fans who felt cheated and are left with PTSD over it all (tbf - I think a couple are still getting over the announcement of the team sheet at Wembley).
Back to some sort of sensibility, there is no direct reason why Boro's claim is any more valid than one that could be made by any other club in the division and any award of a claim would open up the floodgates, not just for us but against Aston Villa, Birmingham, QPR and others.

I always try to see the other side in sitautions like this. From the EFL perspective I do get that they need to break this cycle somehow - this will be the third year running when clubs are relegated for financial matters rather than playing performance and the fourth year running where clubs have been docked points for failing to comply. That can't be how a sporting league operates. So I do, reluctantly, understand their desire to take a hard line on clubs who fall foul - much though we can try to argue it was our owner, not the club, and we are being punished for their decisions.
But there are two parts where it all falls down. The Boro / Wycombe argument is just lunacy. Are we now to sue Chorley, or the Government, because it can be shown that we were unfairly punished for comlying with Covid guidelines? Should we claim we would have actually won the Cup otherwise and now require a share of Europa League payments?
The second point is the clear delay tactics of the EFL, all the way through, to use uncertainty as the ultimate punishment. I get that the EFL are the body to support all clubs, and that means taking the line that best does that for the overall league, but their total lack of ownership of the issue should leave the whole league realising they are not capable as a governing body.
Where it ends nobody really knows but the salutory tale of Bury tends to suggest the worst case scenario is a very real prospect and the EFL either cannot, or will not, stop that happening. I fear they now cannot, particularly as the Boro / Wycombe cases are actually more then law of the land than internal matters that they can adjudicate over.
The whole thing has, sadly, gone beyond them though that does not in one iota remove the ultimate blame that lies on them. They could have sorted this, while achieving their aims of punishing 'us' for our offences, months ago. I've signed the petition, I've written to my MP (Nadham Zahawi - whistle if you think that's going to do anything) but the very present issue has, imho, passed that. There is only one real factor on the table with three options, with 'we' being any potential new owner.
OPTION ONE: We settle out of court with Boro and Wycombe
OPTION TWO: We convince them to cease proceedings
OPTION THREE: We fight it in court
I can't see any of those options being realistically palatable to all parties, so I take a very dim view of what the future holds.

I always try to see the other side in sitautions like this. From the EFL perspective I do get that they need to break this cycle somehow - this will be the third year running when clubs are relegated for financial matters rather than playing performance and the fourth year running where clubs have been docked points for failing to comply. That can't be how a sporting league operates. So I do, reluctantly, understand their desire to take a hard line on clubs who fall foul - much though we can try to argue it was our owner, not the club, and we are being punished for their decisions.
But there are two parts where it all falls down. The Boro / Wycombe argument is just lunacy. Are we now to sue Chorley, or the Government, because it can be shown that we were unfairly punished for comlying with Covid guidelines? Should we claim we would have actually won the Cup otherwise and now require a share of Europa League payments?
The second point is the clear delay tactics of the EFL, all the way through, to use uncertainty as the ultimate punishment. I get that the EFL are the body to support all clubs, and that means taking the line that best does that for the overall league, but their total lack of ownership of the issue should leave the whole league realising they are not capable as a governing body.
Where it ends nobody really knows but the salutory tale of Bury tends to suggest the worst case scenario is a very real prospect and the EFL either cannot, or will not, stop that happening. I fear they now cannot, particularly as the Boro / Wycombe cases are actually more then law of the land than internal matters that they can adjudicate over.
The whole thing has, sadly, gone beyond them though that does not in one iota remove the ultimate blame that lies on them. They could have sorted this, while achieving their aims of punishing 'us' for our offences, months ago. I've signed the petition, I've written to my MP (Nadham Zahawi - whistle if you think that's going to do anything) but the very present issue has, imho, passed that. There is only one real factor on the table with three options, with 'we' being any potential new owner.
OPTION ONE: We settle out of court with Boro and Wycombe
OPTION TWO: We convince them to cease proceedings
OPTION THREE: We fight it in court
I can't see any of those options being realistically palatable to all parties, so I take a very dim view of what the future holds.

Maybe if their fit and proper person test was more thorough or they intervened in finacial matters before breaking points were reached then clubs being relagted for finacial breaches would be less common 

I always try to see the other side in sitautions like this. From the EFL perspective I do get that they need to break this cycle somehow - this will be the third year running when clubs are relegated for financial matters rather than playing performance and the fourth year running where clubs have been docked points for failing to comply. That can't be how a sporting league operates. So I do, reluctantly, understand their desire to take a hard line on clubs who fall foul - much though we can try to argue it was our owner, not the club, and we are being punished for their decisions.
But there are two parts where it all falls down. The Boro / Wycombe argument is just lunacy. Are we now to sue Chorley, or the Government, because it can be shown that we were unfairly punished for comlying with Covid guidelines? Should we claim we would have actually won the Cup otherwise and now require a share of Europa League payments?
The second point is the clear delay tactics of the EFL, all the way through, to use uncertainty as the ultimate punishment. I get that the EFL are the body to support all clubs, and that means taking the line that best does that for the overall league, but their total lack of ownership of the issue should leave the whole league realising they are not capable as a governing body.
Where it ends nobody really knows but the salutory tale of Bury tends to suggest the worst case scenario is a very real prospect and the EFL either cannot, or will not, stop that happening. I fear they now cannot, particularly as the Boro / Wycombe cases are actually more then law of the land than internal matters that they can adjudicate over.
The whole thing has, sadly, gone beyond them though that does not in one iota remove the ultimate blame that lies on them. They could have sorted this, while achieving their aims of punishing 'us' for our offences, months ago. I've signed the petition, I've written to my MP (Nadham Zahawi - whistle if you think that's going to do anything) but the very present issue has, imho, passed that. There is only one real factor on the table with three options, with 'we' being any potential new owner.
OPTION ONE: We settle out of court with Boro and Wycombe
OPTION TWO: We convince them to cease proceedings
OPTION THREE: We fight it in court
I can't see any of those options being realistically palatable to all parties, so I take a very dim view of what the future holds.

Nice of him to give some of it back

Brackenny Miller

Port Vale vs Derby or England vs Brazil?

That's called a false opposition - setting up a mythical version of something that you have no evidence to support it with. Just like I could say that we've also created a society where some (with some being the key word in both phrases) prefer to send their children to boarding school rather than take time to parent them in a meaningful manner. It's an easy game really, the Daily Mail have been doing it for decades.

Your mail started quite well and I was actually enjoying reading about the examples you laid out, interesting content and much appreciated. Towards the end you just got petty and condescending, as another poster said in reply to one of my other comments, you have no idea who I am what I do, what I know and what I value. And your tone, which frankly comes across as lecturing and a bit self important, did mean my interest waned by the line.

That's called a false opposition - setting up a mythical version of something that you have no evidence to support it with. Just like I could say that we've also created a society where some (with some being the key word in both phrases) prefer to send their children to boarding school rather than take time to parent them in a meaningful manner. It's an easy game really, the Daily Mail have been doing it for decades.

That's called a false opposition - setting up a mythical version of something that you have no evidence to support it with. Just like I could say that we've also created a society where some (with some being the key word in both phrases) prefer to send their children to boarding school rather than take time to parent them in a meaningful manner. It's an easy game really, the Daily Mail have been doing it for decades.

That's called a false opposition - setting up a mythical version of something that you have no evidence to support it with. Just like I could say that we've also created a society where some (with some being the key word in both phrases) prefer to send their children to boarding school rather than take time to parent them in a meaningful manner. It's an easy game really, the Daily Mail have been doing it for decades.

Just thinking about this. Assuming you are Wogie ITK and it's true. Who paid the fees to him in the first place? The BBC...who are funded largely from the license fee that we all (ahem..most of us) pay. 
The whole thing is just weird the more you think about it.
"We've created a society where there are children in need, despite that fact that we could easily eradicate child poverty were there the will to do so - but instead we're organising a special TV show where celebrities will entertain you in return for you donating money to the cause"

Port Vale vs Derby or England vs Brazil?

Minus three? Sorry to hear that mate.

Minus three? Sorry to hear that mate.

Most excellent advice. In other news, I'll not be self-castrating with a rusty spoon, using the microwave to dry the cat, or going deep-sea fishing without a boat. 

Indeed - that's emoji-wang

Whether we did, or whether we didn't, is actually irrelevant. What we did do (or rather what he did do) was run a club beyond it's means, write cheques we literally couldn't cash and own the club with a level of irresponsibility that will ultimately mean that many suppliers, employees and fans are financially impacted by it.
Stop this drivel about points, amortisation and who was wrong done to and start looking at the fact we are in administration and many other local suppliers will suffer as a result.

Indeed - that's emoji-wang

Difficult to know which match will have fewer attacks.....Wazzas dad's army or Southgate’s 8 defensively minded outfield players..... ?