Points deduction

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

This chap?

[A-Ro]

I can only assume so, I believe he posts on the Conference Forum as Alan Blue Square.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

Now what exactly did he say? Because if I understood the Mail story I read online today, it was supposedly posted, not faxed. Or do they fax just before the deadline, then post a copy?

[A-Ro]

I think I'd like to see a full explanation as to what happened, and an explanation of the five-point penalty. (And I'd like to see Mick Brown's resignation, of course.

Why do you want to punish somebody before you've found out what happened and whether (or how much) they are to blame? Surely the logical course of events would to wait for a full explanation and if merited then call for the person responsible to face the consequences.

A guy called Alan Alger said on the Non League show last night that the Conference lost the fax.

Having said that it is still no defence as according to the rules it is the responsibility of the club to ensure that the registration has been made. Which in itself is laughable because allegedly Altrincham ring Conference HQ before every game to make sure they are in the clear and they keep getting told to stop wasting the Conference admin's time.

I think all clubs should do this until common sense prevails.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

I'm always suspicious of the term &quotuntil common sense prevails&quot, it too often tends to mean &quotwe want there to be rules, but in our particular case we would like them not to be applied&quot.

I think there's a problem in these situations because player registrations are very often done at the last minute, for very good reasons, and so you get everybody trying to send faxes two minutes before deadline.

But why this would apply to a re-registation, I'm very far from sure, and why it would drag on for so long, I'm far from sure either.

Why would Altrincham call before every game? Do they register players every week?

[A-Ro]

I'm always suspicious of the term &quotuntil common sense prevails&quot, it too often tends to mean &quotwe want there to be rules, but in our particular case we would like them not to be applied&quot.

In this instance I can't see very much common sense in a rule which basically says you have to send us a fax and then you have to ring up to make sure we've got the fax and while you're at it you might want to ring again to make sure we've not only got it but that we've actioned it.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

Well, quite a lot unless you want to open the door very wide indeed to people who say &quothonestly, we sent it&quot when they didn't.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

Incidentally, I think the same principle would apply in many situations. You've basically got to ensure that what you send to an organisation has been received and acknowledged and if you don't, when it comes to trouble later you won't have a leg to stand on.

[GodalmingYellow]

As I posted elsewhere, I don't liek this withc hunt against Mick Brown.

Even if he has made a mistake, that can't undo all the good work he has done for the club over decades. Far more than can be said for many of those calling for his head.

One mistake versus thousands of good decisions and actions. No contest.

[Isaac]

It's obviously a fairly useless system the conference use, as clubs keep getting caught by it and yet this type of offence practically never happens in the league. Unless we're lead to believe that the club administrators in the conference are inherently worse than those in the league.

Wasn't this sort of point deduction designed to catch clubs playing players registered with other clubs? Surely in these circumstances, which seem innocent, a fine and suspended points deduction would be appropriate? The punishment does not seem to fit the crime here really. Didn't AFC Wimbledon get caught with something fairly similar, but managed to get the points reduced from lots to 3?

I feel very sorry for Mick Brown, he's clearly not incompetent or otherwise we'd have faced be facing these sorts of penalties before and to lose your job for forgetting to make a phone call (as seems to be the case) appears, like the points deduction itself, an very harsh punishment.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

One mistake versus thousands of good decisions and actions.

Thousands?

Go on, list a few hundred for us then.

I really hate this &quotMick's been a good old Oxford boy for years&quot attitude. I've never thought he was anything special and he seems to be immune from criticism despite not obviously performing on a superhuman level.

It's precisely this sort of approach that brings incompetence.

[Isaac]

And as others have said. The 5 point decision is ridiculous, apparently it's only the games he started, but given that he actually scored in the Eastbourne game when he came on as sub (and wasn't it the decisive 4th goal to put us 4-3 up?) then it shows the decision to be exactly what it is, an ill-thought out fudge.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

It's obviously a fairly useless system the conference use, as clubs keep getting caught by it and yet this type of offence practically never happens in the league. Unless we're led to believe that the club administrators in the conference are inherently worse than those in the league.

I'd have thought this last was entirely possible. They have less money and are more likely to be reliant on people who are assumed to know what they're doing because they've done the job for years.

Not that the last would happen at a professional club like United though.

[A-Ro]

I'm always suspicious of the term &quotuntil common sense prevails&quot, it too often tends to mean &quotwe want there to be rules, but in our particular case we would like them not to be applied&quot.

I wasn't suggesting special treatment for us, for &quotcommon sense prevails&quot read &quota workable system is installed&quot

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

I'm always suspicious of the term &quotuntil common sense prevails&quot, it too often tends to mean &quotwe want there to be rules, but in our particular case we would like them not to be applied&quot.

I wasn't suggesting special treatment for us, for &quotcommon sense prevails&quot read &quota workable system is installed&quot

Fair enough, but what specifically would constitute &quota workable system&quot and in the absence of same, why does not &quotnormal custom and practice and precedent&quot apply?