The wait goes on ...

[great_fire]

By relaxing the lock down, and changing to 'stay alert', lots are thinking that the virus is contained and over. Listening to some of the interviews in the news reports (both British and Americans) regarding the current rioting are now talking about the virus in past tense!!

The left-wing media now have something else to use to push their agenda.

[wrinkly]

I am not sure whether TS has been on Sky, but I know that they have now interviewed both him and Barry Sty in a short space of time. Now forgive me for being cynical but are our pay to view friends trying to influence things, and if so, why? Peterborough certainly are a smaller club than the Millers (look at the gates and respective stadiums and last 10 years league standings). They have one obvious advantage and that is their geographical position.

In terms of the Tranmere idea, I thought that both the Millers and Coventry are promoted. Obviously tha'ts why their 8 team play-off comes into the equation because the Posh would not get a look in otherwise.

EFL please wake up and smell the Bulls##t.

The Ipswich article, which I posted a link to earlier, did say that we would be automatically promoted under the Tranmere "throw a double and have another turn" system. My latest understanding of that cryptic puzzle (which could easily be wrong) is that we would only get automatic promotion if, after applying the worst case scenario "margin of error" adjustment to our ppg, we couldn't be caught by any other club after applying the best case scenario adjustment to their ppg.
If that's correct then we wouldn't get automatic promotion as our least number of points under Tranmere's proposal could be passed by other clubs using a higher point on the "margin"
Not easy to understand and I'm sure my explanation makes it as clear as mud.
I am certainly not confident that the Ipswich article got it right (automatic for us and Cov) and the Peterborough article got it wrong (automatic for Cov, play-offs for us)

[Galley On]

The Ipswich article, which I posted a link to earlier, did say that we would be automatically promoted under the Tranmere "throw a double and have another turn" system. My latest understanding of that cryptic puzzle (which could easily be wrong) is that we would only get automatic promotion if, after applying the worst case scenario "margin of error" adjustment to our ppg, we couldn't be caught by any other club after applying the best case scenario adjustment to their ppg.
If that's correct then we wouldn't get automatic promotion as our least number of points under Tranmere's proposal could be passed by other clubs using a higher point on the "margin"
Not easy to understand and I'm sure my explanation makes it as clear as mud.
I am certainly not confident that the Ipswich article got it right (automatic for us and Cov) and the Peterborough article got it wrong (automatic for Cov, play-offs for us)

Thanks for that wrinkly. As far as I am concerned (and yes I am biased) then If the season ends then then there's no games other than play-offs. That means the season has ended and the top two go up. the next 4 play-off. fairest way is PPG. EFL get this right.

[flourbasher]

When I read the proposal a week or two ago I thought it said That those teams in an automatic promotion spot would not be affected by the margin of error and Tranmere,s suggestion therefore relates just to the playoff places and obviously them not being relegated.
So if a journalist has applied the margin of error to us then they shouldn't have done as we are exempt.

I assume Mr Palios has done this to get maximum votes to save his club including cov , Roth, all the teams in expanded playoffs, Wimbledon plus all the clubs who have got financial concerns


I didn't read it closely though as it wasn't clear and I gave up after a while so who knows what it all means

[rolymiller]

When I read the proposal a week or two ago I thought it said That those teams in an automatic promotion spot would not be affected by the margin of error and Tranmere,s suggestion therefore relates just to the playoff places and obviously them not being relegated.
So if a journalist has applied the margin of error to us then they shouldn't have done as we are exempt.

I assume Mr Palios has done this to get maximum votes to save his club including cov , Roth, all the teams in expanded playoffs, Wimbledon plus all the clubs who have got financial concerns


I didn't read it closely though as it wasn't clear and I gave up after a while so who knows what it all means

Its a very simple formula which just by chance allows pboro a chance of going up and trannie a chance of staying up no more or less than that. A strange coincidence that would allow the 2 gobbiest reps of league 1 clubs a reprieval. It dunt matter that they have been shyte most of the season in their own way. Maybe they should factor in ppg and adjust for pounds spent on side...Pboro would then be going down instead of up...

[flourbasher]

Not sure what the trophies are for but in the cabinet there's a jar of Marmite just over his right shoulder..............what is the meaning of that I wonder?

or is it just a pantry with a glass door?

Marmite is bitter and a lot of people don't like it.
I can see why he holds it in high esteem

[rolymiller]

Another gob shyte

https://talksport.com/football/71255...e-mk-dons-ppg/


We can only hope Rotherham try a bit harder after being gifted another Championship chance, and nobody grudges Coventry fans their moment after the pain they’ve been put through on the EFL’s watch.

Why can't Cov be begrudged but we can?



Also a side swipe at Wycombe

Wycombe will, according to all sources, vote to end the season, but will then be allowed to play in the play-offs. Nobody can defend the sheer hypocrisy of that decision.

A club statement this week laid out Wycombe’s financial position. They can’t afford to play the season, but they can afford to play in the play-offs, and the statement clearly said the club WILL survive. That statement doesn’t smell good.

1. Maybe they can afford 3 games but not 13 there is a big difference...
2. NO mention that they have been in the top 3 most of the season

[wrinkly]

When I read the proposal a week or two ago I thought it said That those teams in an automatic promotion spot would not be affected by the margin of error and Tranmere,s suggestion therefore relates just to the playoff places and obviously them not being relegated.
So if a journalist has applied the margin of error to us then they shouldn't have done as we are exempt.

I assume Mr Palios has done this to get maximum votes to save his club including cov , Roth, all the teams in expanded playoffs, Wimbledon plus all the clubs who have got financial concerns


I didn't read it closely though as it wasn't clear and I gave up after a while so who knows what it all means

I don't blame you for giving up flour.
What Tranmere's analysis is supposed to demonstrate is that ppg, over the last 3 years, would have got the final positions predictions much more incorrect for the relegation places than for the promotion places - not that the top teams wouldn't have been affected by margin of error.
Trying to shed a bit more light:
Tranmere reckon that the ppg calculation of points for games not played could be wrong. The possible points, based on the last 3 years stats, could be 5.45% less than the included ppg figure or 6.28% higher.
So, for example, our final points could be anywhere between 73.73 and 82.84
Oxford, for example, would have a predicted spread of 71.36 to 80.17
Because we could conceivably have, say 79 points, and Oxford (plus other clubs) could conceivably have got, for instance, 80 points Tranmere would argue that the data does not suggest, with enough certainty, that we would have finished in the top two.

[rolymiller]

Its still ridiculous to give clubs a final point score based on the last 3 seasons final games played for lots of reasons.

Why 3 seasons for a start. Why not the last 10 then say (Could it be that Tranny and Pboro have been shyte over the last 10?)
What about clubs who have been in different divs like us and tranny have been. How do you allow for that?
What about how much spent on teams in that time?
What about injuries to key players?
What about crap refereeing or fortunate refs decisions in that time. We were robbed at Pboro with a blatant handball decision which only the ref didn't see. This cost us 2 points. We could have been 2 points clearer of pboro now in the league.

You can go on and on...

[wrinkly]

Another gob shyte

https://talksport.com/football/71255...e-mk-dons-ppg/


We can only hope Rotherham try a bit harder after being gifted another Championship chance, and nobody grudges Coventry fans their moment after the pain they’ve been put through on the EFL’s watch.

Why can't Cov be begrudged but we can?



Also a side swipe at Wycombe

Wycombe will, according to all sources, vote to end the season, but will then be allowed to play in the play-offs. Nobody can defend the sheer hypocrisy of that decision.

A club statement this week laid out Wycombe’s financial position. They can’t afford to play the season, but they can afford to play in the play-offs, and the statement clearly said the club WILL survive. That statement doesn’t smell good.

1. Maybe they can afford 3 games but not 13 there is a big difference...
2. NO mention that they have been in the top 3 most of the season

Adrian Durham is paid to spout nonsense to provoke a response (a sort of professional ibs)
As you suggest - totally devoid of reason.
I've seen the criticism of Wycombe's stance before on the lines of voting for the season to finish yet wanting to play on themselves. You have pointed out the flaw in that argument.
To expand a bit:
The play-offs will be 5 games (could even be 3 if, sensibly, the semis were just one game each at neutral venues)
To play out the season would be about 90 games - a massive difference in health risk and cost