West Ham break the rules big time and don’t get any points deducted. Fine by me, as it’s just The Prem and as an OUFC supporter I don’t give a flying one - though I envisage a long running court case in the offing come next week to see who actually goes down to the 2nd tier of English football if the Hammers do it the honest way in terms of points gained on the pitch.
Then along come Leeds United to rip off their creditors and get the 10 statutory points deducted this season rather than next. Mr. Bates only did it once he knew that Leeds were more or less down and it would not hurt them to take the points deduction now, prompting a quote from the LUFC Supporter’s Trust of “you can’t blame a fox for killing chickens
Boston, Leeds, West Ham
Re: Boston, Leeds, West Ham
[quote="Snake"]West Ham break the rules big time and don’t get any points deducted. Fine by me, as it’s just The Prem and as an OUFC supporter I don’t give a flying one - though I envisage a long running court case in the offing come next week to see who actually goes down to the 2nd tier of English football if the Hammers do it the honest way in terms of points gained on the pitch.
Then along come Leeds United to rip off their creditors and get the 10 statutory points deducted this season rather than next. Mr. Bates only did it once he knew that Leeds were more or less down and it would not hurt them to take the points deduction now, prompting a quote from the LUFC Supporter’s Trust of “you can’t blame a fox for killing chickens
Then along come Leeds United to rip off their creditors and get the 10 statutory points deducted this season rather than next. Mr. Bates only did it once he knew that Leeds were more or less down and it would not hurt them to take the points deduction now, prompting a quote from the LUFC Supporter’s Trust of “you can’t blame a fox for killing chickens
Chester are also remoured to want Steve Evans to take over the manager role so recently vacated by Mark Wright - one pleasant man to replace another then!
//
The West Ham thing is more of a grind because the authorities had numerous chances to prevent this situation, with a number of player registration cases in the past, (altrincham, Bury, AFC Wimbledon, etc) and the fact they knew about this months ago.
What was needed, was a clear base rule that all registration errors are met with a three point penalty, unless it is decided that the breach was deliberate. This would make sure all breaches were punished, but that those where the mistake was not picked up immediately would not be treated harsher than those quickly detected.
The real question on this one is why it took them til so late in the season to reach a decision. This has been known about for months, so if they had dealt with it then with a simple 3pts penalty, we would not be going through all this distasteful wrangling now.
//
The Leeds/Boston situation is different in that this is the first time someone has gone through this loophole in the rules. Leeds at least had the decency to announce their move prior to the final day, unlike Boston.
The wording (if not spirit) of the rules probably do allow them both to get away with it, although what the exact definition of the season end is is not clear, and fairness (for all it counts in this situation) dictates that they both are treated the same.
However, I think the lateness of the Boston application does give the blazers an opportunity to delay their penalty until next season, but we'll have to see.
The interesting thing will be how the Conference react, in the light of the events which took Boston up a few years ago. If they get any autonomy in this decision expect the Lincs-boys to be hit hard - infact there is even talk of using the club's financial instability as a reason to not accept them at all, forcing them to drop further down the pyramid.
With Leeds, it is not the timing of the announcement that strikes me as dodgy, but the fact that Bates somehow managed to buy the club back straight away. I do not claim to understand the ins and outs of such cases, but this strikes me as not right.
//
For the future, the FA need to make a simple amendment to their rules on these penalties.
I would suggest: any club going into administration prior to a set date (say March31st) would have the 10 points taken during that season.
Any club doing so after this date, would still have them taken that season, UNLESS their final points tally without the fine would mean relegation anyway, in which case it is held over until the following season. Whether a similar special case needs to be introduced for promotion or not I have yet decided.
//
Another one for the 'cheat' list - Slumdon Supermarine were playing Chesham and were 2-0 down with seven minutes left, when their keeper got seriously injured. The referee abandoned the game, even though the player was moved within around 20 minutes. The game had to be replayed, SS got a 0-0 draw which pushed them one point and one point higher up the playoff ladder, which they have duly gone on to win...
Anyway - another almighty mess meaning another season ends with a rather nasty taste in the mouth across the board.
//
The West Ham thing is more of a grind because the authorities had numerous chances to prevent this situation, with a number of player registration cases in the past, (altrincham, Bury, AFC Wimbledon, etc) and the fact they knew about this months ago.
What was needed, was a clear base rule that all registration errors are met with a three point penalty, unless it is decided that the breach was deliberate. This would make sure all breaches were punished, but that those where the mistake was not picked up immediately would not be treated harsher than those quickly detected.
The real question on this one is why it took them til so late in the season to reach a decision. This has been known about for months, so if they had dealt with it then with a simple 3pts penalty, we would not be going through all this distasteful wrangling now.
//
The Leeds/Boston situation is different in that this is the first time someone has gone through this loophole in the rules. Leeds at least had the decency to announce their move prior to the final day, unlike Boston.
The wording (if not spirit) of the rules probably do allow them both to get away with it, although what the exact definition of the season end is is not clear, and fairness (for all it counts in this situation) dictates that they both are treated the same.
However, I think the lateness of the Boston application does give the blazers an opportunity to delay their penalty until next season, but we'll have to see.
The interesting thing will be how the Conference react, in the light of the events which took Boston up a few years ago. If they get any autonomy in this decision expect the Lincs-boys to be hit hard - infact there is even talk of using the club's financial instability as a reason to not accept them at all, forcing them to drop further down the pyramid.
With Leeds, it is not the timing of the announcement that strikes me as dodgy, but the fact that Bates somehow managed to buy the club back straight away. I do not claim to understand the ins and outs of such cases, but this strikes me as not right.
//
For the future, the FA need to make a simple amendment to their rules on these penalties.
I would suggest: any club going into administration prior to a set date (say March31st) would have the 10 points taken during that season.
Any club doing so after this date, would still have them taken that season, UNLESS their final points tally without the fine would mean relegation anyway, in which case it is held over until the following season. Whether a similar special case needs to be introduced for promotion or not I have yet decided.
//
Another one for the 'cheat' list - Slumdon Supermarine were playing Chesham and were 2-0 down with seven minutes left, when their keeper got seriously injured. The referee abandoned the game, even though the player was moved within around 20 minutes. The game had to be replayed, SS got a 0-0 draw which pushed them one point and one point higher up the playoff ladder, which they have duly gone on to win...
Anyway - another almighty mess meaning another season ends with a rather nasty taste in the mouth across the board.
Fancy the FA allowing someone to drive a coach and horses through the spirit of the laws and the game to avoid being 'actually' punished!
Apparently Slumdon Supermarine also turned the floodlights off eight minutes before time in another game they were losing 2-0 then managed to get a point from the re-arranged game. So they shouldnt have even been in the playoffs at all - seems to run in the water down that way!
Apparently Slumdon Supermarine also turned the floodlights off eight minutes before time in another game they were losing 2-0 then managed to get a point from the re-arranged game. So they shouldnt have even been in the playoffs at all - seems to run in the water down that way!
-
GodalmingYellow
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
There clearly needs to be an agreement between the League and the Conference, especially with the Conference trying to be viewed as div 5."Snake" wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 670393.stm
Cheating Boston b*****s
Lets hope they don't actually benefit from this.
the "problem" here, is that all of us armchair lawyers look at different cases, and then try and put some kind of blanket over them and come up with a "what fair and what isnt" calibration..which is daft!
west ham, for the first and last , didnt have ineligible players, at any time-there is no question about that, what the previous regime failed to do was inform the EPL that there was a clause in the contract that allowed Kia J to sell the players in the january window( an issue which, if you think about it, would only have been to west hams' detriment!) and for that they were fined.
the likes of boro were deducted three points, after being directly told" if you do not fulfill your fixture you will forfeit the three points"
as for the leeds thing, it doesnt take a scientist to work out sooner or later someone would work around the rules like that_)
west ham, for the first and last , didnt have ineligible players, at any time-there is no question about that, what the previous regime failed to do was inform the EPL that there was a clause in the contract that allowed Kia J to sell the players in the january window( an issue which, if you think about it, would only have been to west hams' detriment!) and for that they were fined.
the likes of boro were deducted three points, after being directly told" if you do not fulfill your fixture you will forfeit the three points"
as for the leeds thing, it doesnt take a scientist to work out sooner or later someone would work around the rules like that_)
Re:
How dare you introduce logic and reason into a football forum? Don't you realise that it's emotion and rhetoric that is required."bringiton" wrote:the "problem" here, is that all of us armchair lawyers look at different cases, and then try and put some kind of blanket over them and come up with a "what fair and what isnt" calibration..which is daft!
west ham, for the first and last , didnt have ineligible players, at any time-there is no question about that, what the previous regime failed to do was inform the EPL that there was a clause in the contract that allowed Kia J to sell the players in the january window( an issue which, if you think about it, would only have been to west hams' detriment!) and for that they were fined.
the likes of boro were deducted three points, after being directly told" if you do not fulfill your fixture you will forfeit the three points"
as for the leeds thing, it doesnt take a scientist to work out sooner or later someone would work around the rules like that_)
Re:
Is that so ?"bringiton" wrote: west ham, for the first and last , didnt have ineligible players, at any time-there is no question about that, what the previous regime failed to do was inform the EPL that there was a clause in the contract that allowed Kia J to sell the players in the january window( an issue which, if you think about it, would only have been to west hams' detriment!) and for that they were fined.
I thought that the rules state that there should be no third party ability to influence a a club’s policies or performance of the team.
Even when West Ham were told to give assurance that they had terminated the contract with Joorabchian, the businessman has said that he refused this and that Tevez only continued playing for the Hammers with his permission.
-
Old Abingdonian
- Mid-life Crisis
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:05 am
- Location: Blakeney, Gloucs
Re:
If you criticise punctuation it is a good idea to check your own house is in order first."Old Abingdonian" wrote:Insert '?' Rhetoric includes punctuation.How dare you introduce logic and reason into a football forum? Don't you realise that it's emotion and rhetoric that is required.
Either:
Insert '?'. Rhetoric includes punctuation.
or
Insert '?', rhetoric includes punctuation.
Re:
They didn't!"GodalmingYellow" wrote:There clearly needs to be an agreement between the League and the Conference, especially with the Conference trying to be viewed as div 5."Snake" wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 670393.stm
Cheating Boston b*****s
Lets hope they don't actually benefit from this.
http://www.thisischeshire.co.uk/display ... 263.0..php
-
Paul Cooper
- Dashing young thing
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:16 pm