Rage Online

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:05 pm**

I now have a copy of the paper. Ben Coker played for as a substitute for Histon in their win at Rushden when he was ineligible because he did not have international clearance. The game was played on August 25th.

This FA discovered the discrepancy last month and referred it to the Conference. At their meeting last Thursday the Conference imposed a fine on Histon and used their discretion not to deduct points as they can over international clearance cases.

This is probably correct but it does lead one to suspect that the Conference have not conducted a thorough audit of team sheets, despite Brian Lee's vague claims that he is satisfied that there have been no further breaches of registration regulations.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:28 pm**

ABSOLUTELY UN*****NG BELIEVABLE.

Would this mean that they have actually allowed players to be registered even though the players are not eligible to be registered?

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:39 pm**

&quotBaboo&quot wrote:ABSOLUTELY UN*****NG BELIEVABLE.

Would this mean that they have actually allowed players to be registered even though the players are not eligible to be registered?

They're allowed to be registered, but not to be played - hence the fine.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:48 pm**

So you can register a player without international clearance and play them knowing that you won't lose any points just have a fine.
Did Histon know they a) needed international clearance &amp b) had not got international clearance. Because if the answer is yes, then that is a deliberate attempt to flout the rules. Worse that what Oxford, Mansfield, Crawley &amp Bognor did.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:33 pm**

&quotSideshow Rob&quot wrote:I now have a copy of the paper. Ben Coker played for as a substitute for Histon in their win at Rushden when he was ineligible because he did not have international clearance. The game was played on August 25th.

This FA discovered the discrepancy last month and referred it to the Conference. At their meeting last Thursday the Conference imposed a fine on Histon and used their discretion not to deduct points as they can over international clearance cases.

This is probably correct but it does lead one to suspect that the Conference have not conducted a thorough audit of team sheets, despite Brian Lee's vague claims that he is satisfied that there have been no further breaches of registration regulations.

I'm sure our mate Brian is satisfied - he can't even apply the rules properly so it's unlikely he's going to be looking for more cases to cock up. His handling of this (particularly after the actual points deduction) has been appalling, bad communication, different messages all with an air of arrogance. It's a lesson in how not to do it.

Brilliant this though isn't it? Only in the conference. I agree with not docking Histon points for this though - it's a technical offence after all much like ours was.

I really can't see the conference giving any points back our way, given that it would knock someone else out of the playoffs would cause uproar.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:39 pm**

&quotwould cause uproar&quot

Uproar has been caused already.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:53 pm**

&quotThe OXman Cometh&quot wrote:&quotwould cause uproar&quot

Uproar has been caused already.

And some.

&quotWould knock someone else out of the play offs&quot. And what has our points deduction done - knocked us out of the play off places.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:16 pm**

&quotSideshow Rob&quot wrote:I now have a copy of the paper. Ben Coker played for as a substitute for Histon in their win at Rushden when he was ineligible because he did not have international clearance. The game was played on August 25th.

This FA discovered the discrepancy last month and referred it to the Conference. At their meeting last Thursday the Conference imposed a fine on Histon and used their discretion not to deduct points as they can over international clearance cases.

This is probably correct but it does lead one to suspect that the Conference have not conducted a thorough audit of team sheets, despite Brian Lee's vague claims that he is satisfied that there have been no further breaches of registration regulations.

So, has Rule 6.8 changed in the last three seasons? As the Conference were 'compelled' to deduct points from Altrincham for the same offence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 929918.stm

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:28 pm**

&quotLong John Silver&quot wrote:
&quotSideshow Rob&quot wrote:I now have a copy of the paper. Ben Coker played for as a substitute for Histon in their win at Rushden when he was ineligible because he did not have international clearance. The game was played on August 25th.

This FA discovered the discrepancy last month and referred it to the Conference. At their meeting last Thursday the Conference imposed a fine on Histon and used their discretion not to deduct points as they can over international clearance cases.

This is probably correct but it does lead one to suspect that the Conference have not conducted a thorough audit of team sheets, despite Brian Lee's vague claims that he is satisfied that there have been no further breaches of registration regulations.
So, has Rule 6.8 changed in the last three seasons? As the Conference were 'compelled' to deduct points from Altrincham for the same offence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 929918.stm

As I understand it, yes it has changed. The Altrincham and AFC Wimbledon cases showed how draconian the punishments could be for a relatively minor offence.

Anyway, this is the text of an email I have sent to the BBC Non-League show and the Non-League paper (and yes, I know I've used the Alty etc cases as an example, but much better to get the authorities to explain the difference than give them a Get Out Of Jail Free card!!!):

Well, this weekend's news has blown Brian Lee's claim that &quot64 out of 68 clubs have got it right&quot clean out of the water. The revelation that Histon fielded a player without international clearance and last week received a simple fine in punishment is, quite simply, scandalous. In the past we have seen Altrincham, Weymouth and AFC Wimbledon all suffer points deductions for this very offence - what is different about Histon? Would it have anything to do with Histon's chairman being on the Conference board?! Also, either Lee was aware of this situation, in which case the claim that there were no other problems with player registrations is an outright lie, or he was unaware of a situation which, in the current climate, he clearly should have been. Either way, his continued tenure as Conference chairman is untenable.

Further, which is the greater offence - a club fielding a newly signed player without international clearance, or a club fielding an allegedly unregistered player in his third season with the club (a la Oxford's Eddie Hutchinson)? The answer clearly doesn't need spelling out, but the punishments dished out by the Conference suggest that it does!

To retain any credibility whatsoever, the Conference MUST immediately return all points deducted this season and ensure that they have consistent systems in place, coupled with proportionate penalties for non-compliance in place for the start of next season and Mr Lee should take the only honourable route open to him and resign.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:09 pm**

if ever there was any doubt that the administration of the conference is a shambles...

but in terms of points deductions, my understanding is that the histon player made a substitute appearance. i would guess that since OUFC pointed out that the administrators had discretion in these cases, they have adopted a consistent approach.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:57 pm**

Whatever happens over this there needs to be a full on campaign to get rid of Brian Lee who is clearly woefully lacking the expertise, skills and abilities to fulfill this role.

I would suggest that a majority of the regular contributors to this forum would do a much better job than this man.

I would love to see his job description and know what he is being paid.

And also how the flip he got the post in the first place?

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:43 pm**

My guess is that Lee took it as semi-retirement job and didn't expect the work to be as much as it is.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:50 pm**

anyone fancy writing to the members of the FA regulatory authority? Monday I will post up all their home addresses (Lord Triesman excepted who has a confidentiality order).

Not sure what to write, but starting with GY's questions, and following up with &quotif you haven't asked these questions, then why not. Perhaps you should resign and let someone else who does care about football outside of the Premiership onto the committee&quot

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:00 pm**

&quotslappy&quot wrote:anyone fancy writing to the members of the FA regulatory authority? Monday I will post up all their home addresses (Lord Triesman excepted who has a confidentiality order).

Not sure what to write, but starting with GY's questions, and following up with &quotif you haven't asked these questions, then why not. Perhaps you should resign and let someone else who does care about football outside of the Premiership onto the committee&quot

I think the email/text from Myles is excellent and should provide the content to the FA and every other interested member of the media or witin Football.

As for Burton amd the pitch invasion and alleged assaults see below

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubf ... 45340.html

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:09 pm**

&quotBrahma Bull&quot wrote:[As for Burton amd the pitch invasion and alleged assaults

&quotalleged assaults&quot - what is this all about?

Rage Online

More improperly registered players?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: