The9

Worth pointing out that Fowler was at Cardiff in 2007/8 and did nothing of note for them - 4 league goals in 5 months and then no appearances after Xmas. That was 4 years ago and he was past it then. In fact I seem to recall a bet I had that Fowler would play fewer games than (I think it was someone like) Rasiak would score goals.

I'm sure a report saying "with Yeung's funding.. this much, without... this much" would save them the trouble of having to do all their loan activity in February... unless ofcourse the reason they're not posting is because they don't want to show how much up the creek they are yet, which seems to be the usual course of action for clubs who are massively overstretched. Amazing how in the summer both Birmingham and West Ham were skint and yet they have enough to try and launch a bid to get back in the Prem. I'm not sure why they're bothered, they always lose money when they're up there anyway.

Yeah, Pahars' goal in the 3-0 against Pompey in 2003/4 was already a "comeback" goal. He played 9 league matches in 2002/3 and only 3 league games in 2003/4 before that December win. His miraculous return to fitness in early 2004 (I remember he scored in the win at Man City in April 2004 under Sturrock too) coincided nicely with Latvia's Euro 2004 appearance.

Was it against West Ham though ?

Yes, but the FL have acted, and they have acted as prescribed by their own rules. Birmingham have been punished for not sending in their accounts on time. What they haven't done is undermined their own authority by ignoring their own rules and making up stuff to suit the situation. Birmingham haven't broken any other rules (that we know of), and if the FL feel a rule change is necessary due to this situation then what they need to do are change the rules and apply them evenly to all. In terms of changing the rule itself, I'm not sure how you would retrospectively repeal legitimate transfers. I suppose it could be possible to enforce a rule that teams are embargoed on transfers if they haven't submitted their accounts a month in advance or something like that, or they could change the accounting periods required to coincide with transfer windows. Whatever they might choose to do, they can't just say "they're sort of looking like they might be not adhering to the spirit of the law" and then trump up some punishment... well, they can, but the FL then run the risk of looking inconsistent in their application of the rules.

I agree, but advocating pre-emptive rule changes based on circumstantial evidence will weaken the competition not strengthen it. Though I'm not quite sure how Brum "admitting it" isn't worthy of a disrepute charge.

It's not worth them giving away the tens of millions they'd have to "invest" just to keep a side going that might possibly be worth not losing 2 points, when the usual position is that teams make the end of the season anyway. More to the point, if they get liquidated in April they wouldn't be able to do anything about it, and if West Ham chuck money at them there's no guarantee it will make any difference. Also, if West Ham know they're up the creek they won't want to sign any players on Skate-sized contracts, and there's the possibility the FL will punish them for it too. An equally logical policy would be for them to go out and deliberately lose to all the sides in financial trouble just on the off-chance one of them is liquidated.

Based on my experience in Newport with Cardiff City shirts (bearing in mind they were at the same level the season before Newport went bankrupt), it takes 5 years for local sport stores to start stocking the rival's kit - I got into trouble for hiding them when I was working in sports retail , and it took 15 years for "native" people to start going. Though in Cardiff's case they were a going-nowhere League One side for most of those first 15 years, so if Saints were in the Prem and relatively successful the change would be as quick as the appearance of Skate shirts in Eastleigh and Winchester in 2008, 2 years after we dropped below the Skate Cheats for the first time in 45 years. I am appalled to note that 6 or 7 of my Newport-born friends are now Cardiff ST holders and most are taking their kids with them, which is when it really takes hold. Parents trying to defend against watching "those Skammah Kants" aren't going to have much to fall back on if the alternative is a side on a par with Havant and Waterlooville reserves, and no amount of Wessex League success will impress kids as much as being on telly.

It does help if it is physically possible for him to aim at the 3/4 of the goal that was open, given his body position of course, which it wasn't.

I'm sure he's used to complete imbeciles harping on about the tragedy with his son by now, he's not even on twitter, is he?

What, not even by taking 4 points from them ? If there are 23 teams in the league and we finish top we will be there on merit. Their failure to complete a season is irrelevant and will be forgotten in time, and "you only went up because we ceased to exist" is hardly likely to be something anyone will be boasting about, especially when the comeback is as simple as "is that our fault?" and it just draws attention to their utter failure to exist.

Why ? There's an accounts deadline, it's now passed, NOW they can punish them, and they have, immediately. Birmingham have moved intelligently to ensure they've got their transfers in early, but they didn't break any rules to do so. Of course if they were that smart they'd have done their accounts, or not got into the mess they have so that their accounts aren't worth hiding. All of this "pre-emptive discipline" stuff is just nonsense and would be laughed out of court.

For the moment I'm inclined to think that pretty much all of our top tier squads, including the one that finished bottom in 2005/6, were better than the one we have at the moment. If/when we get to see how this lot do in the top tier, then I may amend my thinking. For those taking issue with the 2005/6 comment, that squad featured Niemi, Killer, Claus, Le Saux, Oakley, Pahars, Anders, Beattie (at the start of the season, Camara at the end), Phillips, and Crouch, as well as the crap like Davenport and Nilsson.

The Football League has previously "seen to it" that a number of clubs have had their records expunged for failing to complete their season and has no interest in helping incompetent clubs maintain their status.

No, and they could do it every other day of every other week and don't, as well.

Bonus point for that one.

Checks of everyone on the way in for anything chuckable (they can miss the kick off by 20 minutes if necessary, there are at least 2 precedents I know of), and police 5 deep in front of the away section, problem solved. Even if they rip all the seats out and start slinging them we've got great CCTV and the regular reminders that "whether you have a football club or not you will still be around to face criminal prosecution" should take the edge off for those with that mindset. The other alternative is that we ban away fans on police advice. I wouldn't even mind that one too much if there was genuine intelligence about widespread criminal intentions, it's usually the Few ruining it for the others...

That's not in the rules. What they say is "if the club is unable to fulfil their fixtures, their results will be expunged from the table". They can't boot someone out on the offchance they might not fulfil their fixtures, it's legally very dodgy ground. Also, if they fail to fulfil their fixtures, they are removed from the League and will have to apply to be readmitted. The chances of a team failing to complete fixtures yet continuing to operate seems very slim, and if they go to the wall there's no link to the previous club, as there is with administration (hence the CVA rules). As there is now a pyramid of equally worthy clubs queuing up for FL places, it would hardly be fair of the FL to reintroduce a team lower down when it had failed to complete its fixtures previously. The grey area is that pretty much every case I've seen so far has a club in the bottom division and they've been liquidated, so whether they can continue in the league if they fail to complete a season but somehow don't get liquidated is unprecedented. I'm not saying your scenario isn't possible, just that on every other occasion I'm aware of not fulfilling fixtures = booted out of the League not just the division. It's extremely unlikely they will not fulfil fixtures and be able to continue as a business.

Yes, because that's definitely going to happen with all their fans being escorted to and from their bubble buses in a cordoned-off area surrounded by high metal walls.

You're already of no consequence, lemming.

Er, here's the attendance table from this season, find out the price of admission, count how many times they've been on Sky and work it out for yourselves : http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance/_/league/eng.2/english-league-championship?cc=5739 Just don't forget that they're tied to some ridiculous contracts they can't get rid of for at least 2 months and don't add any parachute payments in because they don't get any. FEBRUARY 25, 2012 Team Total Average 1 West Ham United 485,929 30,370 2 Derby County 414,622 25,913 3 Southampton 433,266 25,486 4 Leeds United 371,623 23,226 5 Leicester City 371,065 23,191 6 Cardiff City 333,389 22,225 7 Nottingham Forest 375,564 22,092 8 Brighton 321,726 20,107 9 Hull City 299,529 18,720 10 Birmingham 313,615 18,447 11 Ipswich Town 276,464 18,430 12 Reading 311,777 18,339 13 Middlesbrough 300,972 17,704 14 Crystal Palace 225,753 15,050 15 Portsmouth 220,833 14,722 16 Coventry City 249,774 14,692 17 Burnley 241,142 14,184 18 Bristol City 214,879 13,429 19 Watford 213,318 12,548 20 Blackpool 200,516 12,532 21 Millwall 189,393 11,140 22 Barnsley 177,574 10,445 23 Doncaster Rovers 145,265 9,684 24 Peterborough United 134,830 8,988

No because they went into Admin before the 4th Thursday in March, which is the cut-off for points deductions definitely counting in the same season. Also, if they go bust and reform they have no link to the former club.

Aren't they all in hiding ?

Probably, I couldn't resist a little dig at the wrist-slitters though.

Despite the fact that the rules don't state that, and that it punishes the sides who've actually played matches and promotes the possibility of teams deliberately avoiding playing fixtures in order to get points for not doing so. They're nothing if not one-eyed.