Points deduction

Matt D · Post by **Matt D** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:04 pm

&quotSnake&quot wrote: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.

don't know about it's legal standing. but i would have thought that it is clear that if an appeal goes ahead, it would avoid any implications that the appeal hearing had been prejudiced one way or another if the parties concerned don't discuss the details of the case in public.

it may not be a murder trial, but given that i should think problems with the conference's own procedures would be part of any hearing, i can understand why they don't want to get this wrong, and so equally i think the club's silence on the matter at the moment is both understandable and sensible.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:30 pm

&quottheox&quot wrote:
&quotIsaac&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: 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?

Yes, perhaps but it's semantics isn't it? It could be argued that the punishment was written into the rules, but the FA board changed that part. I don't see why something similar can't happen here for the 4 clubs punished.

I'm just trying to point out that just because the rules were broken, it doesn't mean we have to meekly accept the punishment if we think the punishment isn't fair.

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:03 pm

&quotSnake&quot wrote:
&quotKernow Yellow&quot wrote:
&quotSnake&quot wrote: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.

It migt not be sub judice, but commenting before an appeal hearing time limit has expired could be regarded as interfering with the appeals process and subsequently affect a legal case, brought about either by one of the parties involved or another club that has been affected.

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:13 pm

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: 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's an interesting case, and could be argued to set a precedent.

Hmm, I'm starting to waiver now over whether or not the club should appeal. The carrot is obviously the points potentially not being lost, but the stick is the potential to lose more points.

I'm now with Kernow on this, there isn't enough information publicly available to reach a firm conclusion.

Ascension Ox · Post by **Ascension Ox** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:51 pm

[quote=&quotSnake&quot][quote=&quotMatt D&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot]So, who’s side are you on here? 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?

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:45 pm

[quote=&quotAscension Ox&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot][quote=&quotMatt D&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot]So, who’s side are you on here? 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?

Ascension Ox · Post by **Ascension Ox** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:52 pm

[quote=&quotSnake&quot][quote=&quotAscension Ox&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot][quote=&quotMatt D&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot]So, who’s side are you on here? 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?

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:43 pm

I keep hearing people saying “but we’ve got the points back now

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:59 am

I heard today, from a usually reasonable source, that the club were a couple of days late with the registration papers and that the first 3 points would not be recoverable in any appeal.

No doubt the truth will out on Monday.

scooter · Post by **scooter** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:50 am

[quote=&quotSnake&quot][quote=&quotAscension Ox&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot][quote=&quotMatt D&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot]So, who’s side are you on here? 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?

Baboo · Post by **Baboo** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:25 am

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:I heard today, from a usually reasonable source, that the club were a couple of days late with the registration papers and that the first 3 points would not be recoverable in any appeal.

Oh.

slappy · Post by **slappy** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:42 pm

so the FA were able to reduce the AFC Wimbledon points from 18 to 3 as the penalty, though in that league's rules, was excessive.

I think had the conference fined us 11 points that would have been excessive, but 5 is probably not.

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:01 pm

&quotscooter&quot wrote:OxVox release information to members in a manner that means it is in the public domain within minutes as you well know.

Do the committee actually have any inside track info, I'm sure what is released to them by the club is carefully manipulated, their sources for inside track info are probably similar to your extensive network of contacts and observers.

That’s certainly true about what OV puts out to its members, as often it will be cut and pasted or commentated upon in a place like TiU if it’s half interesting. Other not so interesting things like the latest Newsletter have not been, so in theory as a non-member I’ve not read it yet as it’s still not on their website.

In terms of what the committee themselves are told to keep quiet about, then you can only speculate what that is, but if it’s important then why tell them if they can’t disseminate that information, and also run the risk that confidential information could be leaked? Or worse, that stuff is so sensitive that only Trevor is told and instructed not to tell the rest of his committee.

Anyway, we digress from the topic of this thread, though I’m happy to chat about it on a different thread if someone feels strongly enough to start one up.

/

Moving back to more pressing matters, if the club were to appeal then presumably this would take time to happen, so if we did that we could re-examine the league table a few weeks down the line then decided to go ahead or withdraw our case? We could even justifiably claim that it would be unfair to hear our appeal until after the internal review of the Conference procedures is complete. Does that make any sense?

Sideshow Rob · Post by **Sideshow Rob** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:43 pm

According to today's Non League Paper we will be waving the white flag to the Conference Board tomorrow. Bognor have already decided not to appeal and Crawley's bloated buffoon of a manager says he would like his club to appeal because we were let off lightly compared to them.

Kernow Yellow · Post by **Kernow Yellow** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:15 pm

&quotSnake&quot wrote:We could even justifiably claim that it would be unfair to hear our appeal until after the internal review of the Conference procedures is complete. Does that make any sense?

Yes - if the club actually believe that our transgression was solely caused by a failure of Conference procedures, that would make plenty of sense. If, however, that is not the case, then it would seem to be clutching at
straws.

Rage Online

Points deduction

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: