"Snake" wrote:If we do go for it then it will go the FA with a copy to the BSP.
are these the right places for it to go to do you think snake? do you know what panel would hear any appeal?
i'm starting to think that the decision is getting easier for the club to make. we don't get much of a say in it, and i'm still not convinced of its wisdom, but we can be ready to do what we can if the club do decide to appeal.
three points on saturday and an appeal would seem very likely.
I still think that we should not appeal. The play-offs are still a possibility with a 5 point reduction. The play-offs are certainly not a possibility with an 11 point reduction.
I can't see that there is any basis on which we can win an appeal and, if an appeal means that the BSP can re-evaluate their decision and take more points, then its a no-win situation.
If the club feel they must do something then petitioning the FA to make the BSP change their systems would be a much more worthwhile exercise.
"theox" wrote:I still think that we should not appeal. The play-offs are still a possibility with a 5 point reduction. The play-offs are certainly not a possibility with an 11 point reduction.
I can't see that there is any basis on which we can win an appeal and, if an appeal means that the BSP can re-evaluate their decision and take more points, then its a no-win situation.
If the club feel they must do something then petitioning the FA to make the BSP change their systems would be a much more worthwhile exercise.
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.
Bringing in Wilder and winning four on the spin has made the decision to appeal slightly easier as we’re now extremely unlikely to go down, even with an eleven point penalty.
Increasingly I think there is a case for just a three point penalty. This would be for when Hutch first played without BSP registration papers (as a scoring sub against Eastbourne) because after that time the error should have been picked up by the BSP.
I don’t think we should take a punt and go all the way and claim via their discretionary rule which says something along the lines of substitute appearances may not count as that in itself is a stupid rule. That’s because our defence should be based on logic and sense and making the rules better and fairer for all the clubs in the three Blue Square divisions in future, and not about vindictively highlighting to the footballing world that a bunch of wankers are currently being paid to run the BSP.
So, I think we should get another two points back, and that would be fair given that
a. We cocked up in not checking the form got to the BSP
b. The BSP cocked up in not telling us we cocked up shortly after the first game Hutch played
Does that make sense in terms of a compromise?
/
Also worth mentioning is an extract from a comment on the OxVox website, who instigated a proper poll of their members a few days ago, with the results being as split as we are on here.
“We share the confusion. Our trust committee took a vote on this and was split. There simply isn’t enough reliable information in the public domain.
The more I think about this, the more I think the FA should be taking action against the conference for being unable to administer a league. Email to FA coming up ...
[quote="Snake"]Bringing in Wilder and winning four on the spin has made the decision to appeal slightly easier as we’re now extremely unlikely to go down, even with an eleven point penalty.
Increasingly I think there is a case for just a three point penalty. This would be for when Hutch first played without BSP registration papers (as a scoring sub against Eastbourne) because after that time the error should have been picked up by the BSP.
I don’t think we should take a punt and go all the way and claim via their discretionary rule which says something along the lines of substitute appearances may not count as that in itself is a stupid rule. That’s because our defence should be based on logic and sense and making the rules better and fairer for all the clubs in the three Blue Square divisions in future, and not about vindictively highlighting to the footballing world that a bunch of wankers are currently being paid run the BSP.
So, I think we should get another two points back, and that would be fair given that
a. We cocked up in not checking the form got to the BSP
b. The BSP cocked up in not telling us we cocked up shortly after the first game Hutch played
Does that make sense in terms of a compromise?
/
Also worth mentioning is an extract from a comment on the OxVox website, who instigated a proper poll of their members a few days ago, with the results being as split as we are on here.
“We share the confusion. Our trust committee took a vote on this and was split. There simply isn’t enough reliable information in the public domain.
You could of course take the contrary view, that our recent form has made it easier NOT to appeal. Look how much ground we have made up over the last couple of weeks.
Yes, loads of home games, yes, lots of teams have played far fewer games but still an encouraging rise. Next two games of course are crucial.
This is an extremely difficult judgement call for the club and I don't envy them.
If rules have been broken, however archaic they may be, and however unwieldy the administrative mechanism, then punishment follows.
If the appeal succeeds, all hell will break lose, not just in the Conference but at places like Luton and Rotherham.
Maybe, the best long term view is to take the punishment with the hope that messes like this do not occur again.
Finally, we are all guilty of massive speculation in re Hutchgate. None of us really know what went on, the matter is stil sub judice and therefore it is all very frustrating to flounder around with passion but without authority.
But you buy your season ticket every season on the expectation that basic administration is maintained, (both by club and by league). That it is not is a sorry state of affairs and we have every right to express serious concerns in orgainised cogent manner over this matter ALONE.
But is that grounds enough for an appeal against a rules breach to succeed? I really don't think so.
There seems to be a lot of call on here for basing an appeal on the basis that the BSP rules and procedures are rubbish.
Being a lawyer, I can tell you that any appeal on that basis should fail. Defending the BSP would be very simple in this case as if the rules do say we should have checked, and we didn't, then we broke the rules and thus have been punished. The BSP have already used their discretion and been 'lenient' on us.
Perhaps if we thought the rules were rubbish, we could have petitioned them to change them 3 years ago. Complaining after the event is never likely to be successful.
Ah good, some sense of reality emerging. Can I pose a question asked earlier: is there any evidence at all that OUFC did send up the registration? If there isn't clear and unequivocal documentary evidence of that or clear documented evidence of BSP admitting it had been sent, an appeal is a non-starter.
"Sideshow Rob" wrote: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?
"Sideshow Rob" wrote: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 that this is a point that most people are missing.
"The Board of the Football Conference deplores the recent spate of ill-informed publicity"
which could easily be resolved by informing us exactly how they came to their decision.
My gut (ill-informed) feeling is to appeal, seeing as all evidence points to it being a nonsense punishment for an administrative error. Rather than running scared of a further 6 point deduction, which to me seems rather cowardly. I can't see us making the play-offs with this 5 point deduction anyway, barring some sort of miraculous run of form (and not just at home).
The other conference clubs should get their points back too, comparisons to Luton and Rotherham are meaningless, they were punished for something entirely different.
As someone else said though, the club would have more weight to it's complaints if they'd complained when they came up with the administrative procedure.
"Sideshow Rob" wrote: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 that this is a point that most people are missing.
Would you not be gutted if we didn’t appeal and we failed to reach the playoffs by five points or less?