Rage Online

From the OxVox minutes (below) - I can't believe the 5 points wasn't appealed. We obviously claimed the document was sent in time. Where we let ourselves down was not checking that the 'tear off' slip had been returned. However, the conference should also take responsibility for not picking up the error when Hutch was first on the team sheet (as a sub I believe). This system is shambolic - things get lost in the post all the time, as has clearly been the case here. To result in a 5 point deductions is nothing short of scandalous, I would have been amazed if the FA has rejected the appeal let alone up it to 11 points especially as the Conference have effectivly admitted fault by changing their system.

This is a multi million pound competition, with thousands of people impacted by this absolute farce, come on OxVox keep up the pressure on these bunch of clowns.

&quotThe points deduction saga was discussed. The registration form the Club posted had never been received by the Conference, hence the tear-off return slip to confirm Eddie Hutchinson’s registration and to provide his registration number had not been received by the Club – this had not been noticed by the Club. Prior to November, the player registration numbers were not entered on the squad forms submitted to the Conference the non-registration was not noticed until a Conference check, and it has since changed its procedure. The Trust reported that the petition calling for points to be refunded for all four clubs affected had been popular, with over 5,000 signatures. The Trust would follow up with a letter to the Conference which would ask that a date be set for the review findings and that the detailed findings should be made public well before the end of the season.&quot

Yes, I saw that. I'd assumed from the club's previous position that they knew they'd been late with the registration anyway (why else would Hutch have been registered separately to the others?) But if that's not the case, and the minutes represent the full version of events, then I'm very surprised we didn't appeal. The club may live to regret it for a long time.

According to the Conference's rulgulations they were supposed to follow up the tear-off strip by sending out a regular summary of each team's registered players. I would assume that no such list was sent before Hutchinson's non registration was spotted in November. Although they are vague about the timing of these lists, it negligent not to have sent one earlier.

&quotSideshow Rob&quot wrote:regular summary

As I pointed out elsewhere, 'regular' is not much use. Once a season is regular. They need to have agreed to send frequent summaries for it to be of any use.

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:From the OxVox minutes (below) - I can't believe the 5 points wasn't appealed. We obviously claimed the document was sent in time. Where we let ourselves down was not checking that the 'tear off' slip had been returned. However, the conference should also take responsibility for not picking up the error when Hutch was first on the team sheet (as a sub I believe). This system is shambolic - things get lost in the post all the time, as has clearly been the case here. To result in a 5 point deductions is nothing short of scandalous, I would have been amazed if the FA has rejected the appeal let alone up it to 11 points especially as the Conference have effectivly admitted fault by changing their system.

This is a multi million pound competition, with thousands of people impacted by this absolute farce, come on OxVox keep up the pressure on these bunch of clowns.

&quotThe points deduction saga was discussed. The registration form the Club posted had never been received by the Conference, hence the tear-off return slip to confirm Eddie Hutchinson’s registration and to provide his registration number had not been received by the Club – this had not been noticed by the Club. Prior to November, the player registration numbers were not entered on the squad forms submitted to the Conference the non-registration was not noticed until a Conference check, and it has since changed its procedure. The Trust reported that the petition calling for points to be refunded for all four clubs affected had been popular, with over 5,000 signatures. The Trust would follow up with a letter to the Conference which would ask that a date be set for the review findings and that the detailed findings should be made public well before the end of the season.&quot

This position has been known for a long time and discussed on here at great length already

The only vaguely appealable position was that the Conference should check registrations after every game thus noticing Hutch wasn't registered after the very first game he featured in. However, this wasn't in their procedures at the time and an appeal on the basis that the 'procedure is rubbish' is never going to work simply because if you think a procedure does not work you should complain about it before you get caught out! The position would obviously be wildly different if they had not followed their outlined procedure.

On the basis that an appeal was a waste of time (look at Crawley's position - if the FA had decided that the whole thing was a total shambles then Crawley would have got all their points back as opposed to their punishment just being brought into line with ours), we now need to hope that the Conference man-up and accept the fact that the system was flawed and, as a goodwill gesture, give everyone their points back. The chances of this, however, are very slim.

&quottheox&quot wrote:

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:From the OxVox minutes (below) - I can't believe the 5 points wasn't appealed. We obviously claimed the document was sent in time. Where we let ourselves down was not checking that the 'tear off' slip had been returned. However, the conference should also take responsibility for not picking up the error when Hutch was first on the team sheet (as a sub I believe). This system is shambolic - things get lost in the post all the time, as has clearly been the case here. To result in a 5 point deductions is nothing short of scandalous, I would have been amazed if the FA has rejected the appeal let alone up it to 11 points especially as the Conference have effectivly admitted fault by changing their system.

This is a multi million pound competition, with thousands of people impacted by this absolute farce, come on OxVox keep up the pressure on these bunch of clowns.

&quotThe points deduction saga was discussed. The registration form the Club posted had never been received by the Conference, hence the tear-off return slip to confirm Eddie Hutchinson’s registration and to provide his registration number had not been received by the Club – this had not been noticed by the Club. Prior to November, the player registration numbers were not entered on the squad forms submitted to the Conference the non-registration was not noticed until a Conference check, and it has since changed its procedure. The Trust reported that the petition calling for points to be refunded for all four clubs affected had been popular, with over 5,000 signatures. The Trust would follow up with a letter to the Conference which would ask that a date be set for the review findings and that the detailed findings should be made public well before the end of the season.&quot

This position has been known for a long time and discussed on here at great length already

The only vaguely appealable position was that the Conference should check registrations after every game thus noticing Hutch wasn't registered after the very first game he featured in. However, this wasn't in their procedures at the time and an appeal on the basis that the 'procedure is rubbish' is never going to work simply because if you think a procedure does not work you should complain about it before you get caught out! The position would obviously be wildly different if they had not followed their outlined procedure.

On the basis that an appeal was a waste of time (look at Crawley's position - if the FA had decided that the whole thing was a total shambles then Crawley would have got all their points back as opposed to their punishment just being brought into line with ours), we now need to hope that the Conference man-up and accept the fact that the system was flawed and, as a goodwill gesture, give everyone their points back. The chances of this, however, are very slim.

I think there's a bigger issue than that. The events leading up to this and since have seriously called into question the conference's ability to administer the league correctly. Can anyone now have confidence that other teams haven't played &quotunregistered&quot players in the same way we did? Until the conference carry out a full investigation into this issue and make it publc how can they only punish us and Crawley? Of course my guess is that they do not have sufficient records to answer this one way or the other and therefore the only honourable course of action is to restore our points.

I agree with Mally and they could save face a little by saying they were suspending the sentence rather than overturning it completely.

&quotMally&quot wrote:[
I think there's a bigger issue than that. The events leading up to this and since have seriously called into question the conference's ability to administer the league correctly. Can anyone now have confidence that other teams haven't played &quotunregistered&quot players in the same way we did? Until the conference carry out a full investigation into this issue and make it publc how can they only punish us and Crawley? Of course my guess is that they do not have sufficient records to answer this one way or the other and therefore the only honourable course of action is to restore our points.

Excellently put.

&quotMally&quot wrote:Can anyone now have confidence that other teams haven't played &quotunregistered&quot players in the same way we did? Until the conference carry out a full investigation into this issue and make it publc how can they only punish us and Crawley? Of course my guess is that they do not have sufficient records to answer this one way or the other and therefore the only honourable course of action is to restore our points.

Actually, if they have changed their system back to one where each club has to enter the registration number of all players on the team sheet, then they must already pretty much know how many other incidents there are - since clubs would suddenly find that they didn't have the &quottear off strip&quot and would have to ask for the number. The only cases that wouldn't pop up would be players who had left a club on a transfer or loan (and then it should have emerged on transfer papers) or players still at a club but not played since the introduction of the new system.

The Football Regulatory Authority will be discussing these issues at their next meeting on April 6th.

http://www.oxfordshireforums.co.uk/topi ... C_ID=93158