Points deduction

[slappy]

Thank you for contacting The Football Association. I appreciate you feel frustrated about this situation, however, ultimately the responsibility rests with the Clubs to ensure that their players are eligible to play in the league or other competitions once signed.

Within the Articles of Association of The Football Conference Ltd point 6.8 relating to playing an ineligible player states:

Any Club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and have levied upon it a fine in accordance with the Fines Tariff. The Company may vary the decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or in the case of where a substitute player who was intended to be a participant in a match or was listed on the official team sheet did not participate in that match.

The Board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms that are decided by the Board which may also levy penalty points against the Club in default.

Again I appreciate this may not alleviate your concerns but it is a matter for the Football Conference and as such any complaints should be sent directly to them:

Blue Square Premier, North &amp South
Third Floor
Wellington House
31-34 Waterloo Street
Birmingham
B2 5TJ

Tel: 0121 214 1950 Email: info@footballconference.co.uk

---------------------
Dear Sirs
Please can you pass this into the appropriate department. I am an Oxford United fan and am extremely disappointed to find the Blue Square conference have decided to deduct 5 points after a player was found not to be properly registered with them. This season alone this has happened to Mansfield, Crawley, and also Bognor in the Blue Square South, so it is not a one-off error, it has happened 4 times now. It has become apparent that the system for checking registrations was on a test basis only, and so didn't pick up any omissions until much later in the season, which is a crucial error. I also believe they have now changed their systems which is surely a tacit admission that the previous system needed to be improved upon. I cannot believe that the FA can allow a professional league to be managed so ineptly. Most of the clubs in the BSP are fully professional, yet the conference administration seems to be quite amateur. Even local Sunday leagues have better systems than this bunch of muppets. I appeal to the FA to overrule these points deductions for all 4 clubs on the basis that the systems in place to record and check player registrations were inadequate and unfit for the purpose. Regards

[GodalmingYellow]

I would appeal because:

a) It is the right thing to do for the four clubs unlucky enough to have been found guilty and all the others. We should appeal on the basis that the BSP are guilty of malpractice and be forced to reform their registration rules and procedures.

b) I would be personally gutted if we fail to reach the play-offs due to the points deduction.

Would you not be gutted if we failed to reach the play offs as a result of an increased penalty following an appeal?

I think it is very unlikely that the FA would insist that we take a penalty for an administrative error like this that would be greater than they would impose on a club entering administration. The appeal is well worth a punt.

Rules is rules, and they can't be changed part way through a competition.

The chances of the FA doing anything other than saying it is a matter for the Conference Board, is miniscule.

[Kernow Yellow]

I don’t think anyone has missed that point, Kernow. We do know that the club were partly at fault, but the level of the transgression is miniscule compared to the penalty we may have to suffer.

How do we know this exactly? I don't know any such thing. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions in your arguments and your conclusions.

I won't bother rising to the rest of your post, except to defend OxVox a little - do you really expect them to be able to comment publicly on a matter that is effectively sub-judice, just because you feel left out that you're not in the know? But then you've never let the facts stop you from slagging off OxVox before, so I'm hardly surprised you want the moon on a stick delivered personally to your inbox from people that actually have day-to-day jobs to do as well as voluntarily running a fans trust in their spare time.

I completely agree that in general the Conference seems to be run by ineffective and/or incompetent idiots (incidentally, isn't Mick Brown on the Conference Board?), who have admitted that their systems need looking at (but not for a few weeks, obviously, they're very busy), but I don't think we should therefore conclude that we have been particularly harshly treated until we know the actual facts of our specific case.

[Kernow Yellow]

incidentally, isn't Mick Brown on the Conference Board?

I've just checked, and I think he is. Honestly, you couldn't make it up, could you?

[Snake]

I don’t think anyone has missed that point, Kernow. We do know that the club were partly at fault, but the level of the transgression is miniscule compared to the penalty we may have to suffer.

How do we know this exactly? I don't know any such thing. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions in your arguments and your conclusions.

I won't bother rising to the rest of your post, except to defend OxVox a little - do you really expect them to be able to comment publicly on a matter that is effectively sub-judice.

I think it’s safe to assume that the club screwed up (a bit), even if you don’t.

You raise an interesting point – is this really sub justice? The laws of the land have not been broken - it’s a disagreement with a football administration board and not a murder trial (even if it may have grave financial implications for OUFC) so I’m not sure that publicly discussing this kind of case constitutes interference with due process.

I won’t rise to your bait on OxVox as my previous posting of today covered that. Also, my ISP won’t allow anything bigger than 32Mb to arrive in my inbox and I guess the Moon on a stick is bigger than that. Not that I know for certain how big the Moon is, that's just another one of my assumptions.

[Kernow Yellow]

You raise an interesting point – is this really sub justice? The laws of the land have not been broken - it’s a disagreement with a football administration board and not a murder trial (even if it may have grave financial implications for OUFC) so I’m not sure that publicly discussing this kind of case constitutes interference with due process.

I'm sure you're right, but I dare say the Conference would be pretty unhappy if it became obvious that OUFC had 'leaked' information about this case to people who might hope to profit from that information to either undermine the Conference's position or further OUFC's cause. In short, I don't think it would help with our appeal very much!

The more I think about this, the more I think Mick Brown's conflict of interest confuses the whole case more, and I fear other clubs might want to highlight this if any kind of appeal did go ahead, since I'm sure there are people that think we've been treated pretty leniently compared to others.

[Snake]

A good point about Mick, and a new factor to add to this debate. I don’t think I’ve read any complaints yet from places like Crawley that because Mick is on the board we were treated leniently and only docked 5 rather than 11 points.

As for leaking stuff, then how could the BSP prove it was leaked, given that they can’t disprove we sent the registration form for Hutch? Ah, balance of probabilities you may say, to which I answer that this whole case is about the balance of probabilities and nothing to do with proving things beyond reasonable doubt. Err, probably!

[Mally]

Thank you for contacting The Football Association. I appreciate you feel frustrated about this situation, however, ultimately the responsibility rests with the Clubs to ensure that their players are eligible to play in the league or other competitions once signed.

Within the Articles of Association of The Football Conference Ltd point 6.8 relating to playing an ineligible player states:

Any Club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and have levied upon it a fine in accordance with the Fines Tariff. The Company may vary the decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or in the case of where a substitute player who was intended to be a participant in a match or was listed on the official team sheet did not participate in that match.

The Board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms that are decided by the Board which may also levy penalty points against the Club in default.

That reply makes no sense. It does not define what is meant by the club's &quotresponsibility to ensure that their players are eligible to play&quot. You could argue that sending in a players registration meets this requirement.

The other thing that is lost in all of this argument is the constant use of the word &quotineligible &quot. This is fair enough if the player is ineligible because he's cup tied, hasn't got a work permit or his transfer wasn't completed correctly, but in this case he was totally eligible to play it's simply that the paperwork was lost by the idiots who are imposing the penalty. As soon as errors like this come to light the club should be given a set time to RETROSPECTIVELY submit the registration. If the player is then found to be ineligible for whatever reason then fair enough, take away the points but otherwise there should be no action taken.

The current system is like retrospectively applying for planning permission, getting it granted but you then have to pull down the building and rebuild it exactly the same.

[Snake]

As I’ve mentioned earlier, I don’t think it’s worth sending anything in just yet as we don’t know which way Kelvin will decide to go.

However, if you’ve got just 2 minutes of time of your hands and want to get a message across you can always phone the Conference admin team on 0121 214 1950 and say you’ve written a letter to them about Oxford United’s points deduction. When they start going on about why they can’t comment on the case yet interrupt them and say you’re only phoning to check if they have received your letter, which you insist was put in the post a week ago and you’d like to know if they’ve got it - that’s all. Then give them your name and return telephone number and wait for them to get back to you.

The key to this 2 minutes of fun is of course the fact that you never did send a letter.

[Snake]

[quote=&quotBrahma Bull&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot]I mean, you’re beginning to sound like OxVox. “Oh, we don’t know. Maybe we should do this, maybe we should do that. Can’t we just comment on it after the event?

[Kernow Yellow]

but in this case he was totally eligible to play it's simply that the paperwork was lost by the idiots who are imposing the penalty.

I'm sorry to keep banging on about this, but how do you know this is the case? If it was as clear cut as that I'm sure we would already have launched our appeal.

[Baboo]

[
I completely agree that in general the Conference seems to be run by ineffective and/or incompetent idiots (incidentally, isn't Mick Brown on the Conference Board?), who have admitted that their systems need looking at (but not for a few weeks, obviously, they're very busy),

Which is why we are in this predicament &amp which is why I hold out no hope that we'll ever get the 5 points back.
I don't think they would recognise commonsense even if it took a great bite out of their collective arses.

[theox]

Thank you for contacting The Football Association. I appreciate you feel frustrated about this situation, however, ultimately the responsibility rests with the Clubs to ensure that their players are eligible to play in the league or other competitions once signed.

Within the Articles of Association of The Football Conference Ltd point 6.8 relating to playing an ineligible player states:

Any Club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and have levied upon it a fine in accordance with the Fines Tariff. The Company may vary the decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or in the case of where a substitute player who was intended to be a participant in a match or was listed on the official team sheet did not participate in that match.

The Board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms that are decided by the Board which may also levy penalty points against the Club in default.

That reply makes no sense. It does not define what is meant by the club's &quotresponsibility to ensure that their players are eligible to play&quot. You could argue that sending in a players registration meets this requirement.

The other thing that is lost in all of this argument is the constant use of the word &quotineligible &quot. This is fair enough if the player is ineligible because he's cup tied, hasn't got a work permit or his transfer wasn't completed correctly, but in this case he was totally eligible to play it's simply that the paperwork was lost by the idiots who are imposing the penalty. As soon as errors like this come to light the club should be given a set time to RETROSPECTIVELY submit the registration. If the player is then found to be ineligible for whatever reason then fair enough, take away the points but otherwise there should be no action taken.

The current system is like retrospectively applying for planning permission, getting it granted but you then have to pull down the building and rebuild it exactly the same.

Regardless of whose fault it was that the paperwork wasn't sent/processed, Hutch will be INELIGIBLE on the basis that he wasn't a registered player. The other reasons for being ineligible are irrelevant in this instance.

On the point of ensuring players are registered, I assume it will be read that this means that you should actually check with the League before you put a player on the pitch.

Yes, its a stupid system and the punishment is over-the-top but rules are rules and I will ask this question again - we must have known the rules and agreed to them before playing in the league (not to mention Mick Brown being on the Conference board), so why did no-one query these ridiculous rules prior to being caught foul of them?! Further, why did no-one double check all of our registrations when it first came out about Mansfield?!

[Isaac]

Rules is rules, and they can't be changed part way through a competition.

The chances of the FA doing anything other than saying it is a matter for the Conference Board, is miniscule.

Rules is rules, indeed. But they can and do change part way through a competition. It was even the FA appeals board that did it....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 496543.stm

[theox]

Rules is rules, and they can't be changed part way through a competition.

The chances of the FA doing anything other than saying it is a matter for the Conference Board, is miniscule.

Rules is rules, indeed. But they can and do change part way through a competition. It was even the FA appeals board that did it....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 496543.stm

That doesn't appear to be a change of rules, more a reduction of punishment?