i think it's worse than that - the four points were suspended against further nonsense, and then there was further nonsense, but in the meantime they appealed the original six.

George Street-Bridge wrote:i think it's worse than that - the four points were suspended against further nonsense, and then there was further nonsense, but in the meantime they appealed the original six.

I think the original six are already off their total though until any appeal overturns. Could be wrong, haven't looked at the table - just going off what I've heard on podcasts.

Yes, the original six are off. IIUC when the other four went on they appealed the six on the grounds they hadn't been treated equally with some aspect of Bolton's case. I suppose it's possible they'll get the six back and then lose the four, which would be a result of sorts.

So the one that hasn't yet been penalised is the postponement of the Plymouth match because of the withdrawn safety certificate. That surely will get a hefty punishment because it was done so late in the day, after the Plymouth team (and many supporters) travelled. Added to that was the proclamation that the game was definitely on, shortly after the EFL called it off. Or was that the four point penalty?

My gut feeling is that the EFL will be far more likely to want to rid itself of Macclesfield than Stevenage. There is still the likelihood of Macclesfield limping on to August and, if a takeover doesn't materialise, becoming another Bury. If they are relegated, does the Conference have to accept them?

excessbee wrote:My gut feeling is that the EFL will be far more likely to want to rid itself of Macclesfield than Stevenage. There is still the likelihood of Macclesfield limping on to August and, if a takeover doesn't materialise, becoming another Bury. If they are relegated, does the Conference have to accept them?

Yes. The agreement was when the league increased it to a 2nd promotion place, that they had to accept the relegated teams.
Whether Conf prem or north/south is up to them. I think Boston were bypassed straight down into Conf north.

excessbee wrote:So the one that hasn't yet been penalised is the postponement of the Plymouth match because of the withdrawn safety certificate. That surely will get a hefty punishment...

It must depend on the wording attached to the suspended deduction. It looks like double jeopardy if they then impose a deduction of more than four points.

ghosty wrote:

excessbee wrote:My gut feeling is that the EFL will be far more likely to want to rid itself of Macclesfield than Stevenage. There is still the likelihood of Macclesfield limping on to August and, if a takeover doesn't materialise, becoming another Bury. If they are relegated, does the Conference have to accept them?

Yes. The agreement was when the league increased it to a 2nd promotion place, that they had to accept the relegated teams.
Whether Conf prem or north/south is up to them. I think Boston were bypassed straight down into Conf north.

I was wondering,....... if the relegation is directly linked to financial difficulties and dodgy dealings, the Conference may not accept them, but a straightforward 23rd/24th place finish would be fine.