Boston, Leeds, West Ham

Anything yellow and blue
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Boston, Leeds, West Ham

Post by 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
Mark G
Puberty
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:46 pm

Re: Boston, Leeds, West Ham

Post by Mark G »

[quote=&quotSnake&quot]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
Mooro
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3010
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Hellenic/Spartan border

Post by Mooro »

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.
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Post by Snake »

Mooro
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3010
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Hellenic/Spartan border

Post by Mooro »

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!
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotSnake&quot wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 670393.stm

Cheating Boston b*****s
There clearly needs to be an agreement between the League and the Conference, especially with the Conference trying to be viewed as div 5.

Lets hope they don't actually benefit from this.
bringiton
Baby
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:34 pm

Post by bringiton »

the &quotproblem&quot 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 &quotwhat fair and what isnt&quot 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&quot if you do not fulfill your fixture you will forfeit the three points&quot

as for the leeds thing, it doesnt take a scientist to work out sooner or later someone would work around the rules like that_)
Mally
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2564
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:32 am
Location: Thame

Re:

Post by Mally »

&quotbringiton&quot wrote:the &quotproblem&quot 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 &quotwhat fair and what isnt&quot 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&quot if you do not fulfill your fixture you will forfeit the three points&quot

as for the leeds thing, it doesnt take a scientist to work out sooner or later someone would work around the rules like that_)
How dare you introduce logic and reason into a football forum? Don't you realise that it's emotion and rhetoric that is required.
Baboo
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3539
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:31 pm

Re:

Post by Baboo »

&quotbringiton&quot 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.
Is that so ?

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

Post by Old Abingdonian »

How dare you introduce logic and reason into a football forum? Don't you realise that it's emotion and rhetoric that is required.
Insert '?' Rhetoric includes punctuation.
Mally
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2564
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:32 am
Location: Thame

Re:

Post by Mally »

&quotOld Abingdonian&quot wrote:
How dare you introduce logic and reason into a football forum? Don't you realise that it's emotion and rhetoric that is required.
Insert '?' Rhetoric includes punctuation.
If you criticise punctuation it is a good idea to check your own house is in order first. :-)

Either:

Insert '?'. Rhetoric includes punctuation.

or

Insert '?', rhetoric includes punctuation.
boris
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:44 pm
Location: The house with no door

Post by boris »

Personally, I'd have used a semi-colon.
SmileyMan
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1637
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:39 am

Post by SmileyMan »

Wouldn't a semicolon be better? :)
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re:

Post by Snake »

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotSnake&quot wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 670393.stm

Cheating Boston b*****s
There clearly needs to be an agreement between the League and the Conference, especially with the Conference trying to be viewed as div 5.

Lets hope they don't actually benefit from this.
They didn't!

http://www.thisischeshire.co.uk/display ... 263.0..php
Paul Cooper
Dashing young thing
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:16 pm

Post by Paul Cooper »

There have been dodgy deals going on at Boston for years.

As a club they have deserved what they received but it's the supporters that dont deserve this as usual.
Post Reply