The Atticgo BM Elche handball club released a detailed statement on Thursday afternoon to present its position and defend its actions amid recent accusations. The dispute centers on a decision not to postpone a key Iberdrola League match against Caja Rural Aula Valladolid, a clash that was originally scheduled to be played at the Hope Lag pavilion on Saturday at 18:00. The Elche club asserts that Valladolid’s request to defer the game was not feasible given the tight calendar and the players’ existing commitments, including international duties, which have already affected both sides. The Elche team points out that it had been clear since early October that it could not accept a postponement that would unbalance the competition schedule or undermine the team’s preparation for upcoming tournaments. In light of the international calendar and the forthcoming break for major events, the club emphasizes that it must prioritize competitive integrity and the interests of all players who deserve to compete at the highest level when possible to do so. It notes that only a limited number of players, including international participants, would be available for the match, complicating any attempt to rearrange the fixture. The debate touches on broader considerations of fixture congestion, national team duties, and the responsibilities of clubs to balance sporting objectives with practical constraints. The Argentinian goalkeeper Marisol Carratu and the Brazilian player Kelly Rosa are mentioned in relation to player availability, with only the latter expected to attend the match, which further informs the clubs’ planning and strategy.
In its statement, CBM Elche expressed surprise and regret at a public message published by Miguel Angel Peñas in Valladolid’s press that rejected the postponement of the match between Atticgo BM Elche and Caja Rural Aula Valladolid. The Elche club stresses that the decision to proceed as scheduled was communicated with care and a view toward maximizing the number of players who could participate for both teams, aiming for a satisfactory outcome for everyone involved. The clubs reportedly engaged in initial outreach via email on September 18 to explore a cooperative solution that would accommodate both sides’ needs. This proactive step underscored the willingness to collaborate and find a fair compromise that would allow the greatest possible participation from players while preserving the integrity of the competition.
Following those early discussions, direct conversations between Joaquín Rocamora and Miguel Ángel Peñas took place, with both coaches receiving updates about the evolving plans. It was explained that the dates had been under consideration for roughly a month and that Valladolid’s coach was informed of a preference to place sporting interests at the forefront given the difficulties of adjusting the calendar. This transparency was intended to satisfy the desire to protect the competitive program while acknowledging the unavoidable tension created by scheduling pressures. The statements indicate that the arrangement being contemplated would push the match to a later date, potentially after a long sequence of matches and training blocks that would further complicate travel and preparation. The involvement of the Brazilian youth national team and the presence of players like Kelly de Abreu Rosa were cited as factors that could complicate rearrangements and affect subsequent sequences of matches.
By mid-October, the communication from both sides reflected the impossibility of postponing the meeting under the existing circumstances. The argument highlighted the near-term schedule supporting the European Cup commitments for the Elche team, contrasted with the opponent’s position that accepted the pressure of a condensed calendar. The Elche club, noting this reality, indicated that there was a genuine opportunity to play in the European competition that weekend, a fact repeatedly referenced in exchanges between the clubs and their leadership. The parties described a dynamic in which timing and compounding obligations shaped the decision-making process, and the discussion acknowledged that the proposed new date would still clash with other commitments in the broader sporting calendar, including national association plans and potential international tournaments that begin after a period of domestic play.
The Elche organization underscored that both teams could have faced disadvantage by proceeding as originally planned if key players could not participate or if squared-off conditions would prevent a fair contest. The club reiterated that a postponement, though desirable in ideal circumstances, had not been feasible within the constraints described. The final stance emphasized a sense of responsibility to protect the athletes’ interests, the fans who follow the team, and the club’s broader mission to compete at the highest levels while upholding the sport’s integrity. It was acknowledged that the outcome would reflect not only the immediate game but also the longer arc of the season, with implications for preparation, travel, and the distribution of playing time among squad members.
Ultimately, while Caja Rural Aula Valladolid expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome and the way it was communicated, the Elche club maintained that the public narrative should align with the documented conversations and the realities of a demanding schedule. The statement closed with a commitment to clear and direct communication and a recognition that both clubs would continue to seek constructive solutions for future scheduling challenges, always with the aim of preserving fair play and the competitive health of the league. The parties agreed that the matter would be handled within the governance framework of the federation and its general assembly, with a shared interest in defending the players’ rights and the club communities that support them.