The FA weren't that interested in following up on my first letter complaining about the points deduction, saying it was up to the club to appeal and they didn't.
2nd letter now sent to the Chairman of the Football Regulatory Authority. "I ask the FA to order a Commission of Inquiry into the administration of The Football Conference, specifically regarding player registrations. The Conference are undertaking their own inquiry, but I fear are delaying publication so as to whitewash any results. They are in danger of bringing the game into disrepute due to so many clubs getting points deductions for administrative errors, and I ask you to demand publication of the report by the end of March 2009 and to consider whether any action needs to be taken from that review. "
That is the first paragraph, the rest waffles on a bit. Hopefully the more awareness the FA receive, the better chance they will do something about the Conference and its procedures.
At this point I do of course hope that it was only Hutch for us who was not registered, and that any Conference 100% check on every game and player does not pull up any more OUFC errors.
crawley point deduction reduced to 1 on appeal
-
Radley Rambler
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 2249
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:36 pm
Re:
Yes - An Oxvox committee member has the record of my correspondence."Roo" wrote:"Radley Rambler" wrote:Agreed so will Oxvox (as a recognised body representing the fans) publicly ask the Conference to formally confirm that they have carried out a study of all player registrations from BSP, BSS and BSN and that there are no further discrepancies."Brahma Bull" wrote:OxVox had the Full Conference Rule Book sent to us and even just having a quick browse a number of discrepencies were obvious.
I am sure it could be made available to anyone interested in having some bed time reading or at least the specific pages/rules that are in debate.
I am disgusted that, having had the review and delyed it until the Crawley Appeal, they have now decided to keep the findings and potential criticism until the season has finished. That is unacceptable in itself and could suggest they are still in the wrong.
If the conference can confirm this, then at least there is greater justification in our penalty. If they can/will not, it suggests more revelations are probable but these won't happen until after the season ends when the report's findings are published and it'll all be too late.
So come on Oxvox, c*ck on the block time, are you going to ask for the above confirmation from the conference or not?
I have tried to get this information myself but was asked to write to their legal department once I wouldn't go away nicely. I am but one person, Oxvox has more standing/reason for asking than I and presumably more links with the media if the answer is not satisfactory.
Absolutely right Radley........it is time for OxVox to step up to the plate and DEMAND a simple yes/no answer on this. No more dancing around the minor points, lets have a full and frank dialogue with the Conference on this simple question:
Can they (The Conference) "formally confirm that they have carried out a study of all player registrations from BSP, BSS and BSN and that there are no further discrepancies."
Doing this (and making it know that they have done it) will go a long way to convincing a lot of people, who don't really know what OxVox is actually about, that they ARE a meaningfull and serious voice for Oxford United supporters. Doing nothing will suggest to me, and many others that it is nothing more than a well intentioned talking shop.
I have read all of the correspondence between The Conference and Radley and I smell blood to be honest, The Conference are scared and are trying to frighten him off with talk of legal departments.
Has anyone from OxVox asked you (Radley) for a full copy of the correspondence? If not, they why not OxVox?
So come on, lets see some meaningful action..........and sooner rather than later please!
-
Brahma Bull
- Puberty
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:15 am
- Location: Slumdon
In the BSP rulebook that we requested and had to pay for, Conference Rule 6.8 reads:
PLAYING AN INELIGIBLE PLAYER
Any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and may have levied upon it a fine in accordance with the fines tariff.
The company may vary this decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or in the case of where a substitute player who is ineligible participates in a match or is listed on the
official team sheet but does not participate in that match.
The board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms as are decided by the board which may also levy penalty points against the club in default.
We are in receipt of a correspondance from Brian Lee at the Conference and will be making further decisions today on how to deal with it.
PLAYING AN INELIGIBLE PLAYER
Any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and may have levied upon it a fine in accordance with the fines tariff.
The company may vary this decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or in the case of where a substitute player who is ineligible participates in a match or is listed on the
official team sheet but does not participate in that match.
The board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms as are decided by the board which may also levy penalty points against the club in default.
We are in receipt of a correspondance from Brian Lee at the Conference and will be making further decisions today on how to deal with it.
-
GodalmingYellow
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
What does the correspondence say?"Brahma Bull" wrote:In the BSP rulebook that we requested and had to pay for, Conference Rule 6.8 reads:
PLAYING AN INELIGIBLE PLAYER
Any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and may have levied upon it a fine in accordance with the fines tariff.
The company may vary this decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or in the case of where a substitute player who is ineligible participates in a match or is listed on the
official team sheet but does not participate in that match.
The board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms as are decided by the board which may also levy penalty points against the club in default.
We are in receipt of a correspondance from Brian Lee at the Conference and will be making further decisions today on how to deal with it.
-
Radley Rambler
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 2249
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:36 pm
Re:
Any update?"Brahma Bull" wrote:In the BSP rulebook that we requested and had to pay for, Conference Rule 6.8 reads:
PLAYING AN INELIGIBLE PLAYER
Any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and may have levied upon it a fine in accordance with the fines tariff.
The company may vary this decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or in the case of where a substitute player who is ineligible participates in a match or is listed on the
official team sheet but does not participate in that match.
The board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms as are decided by the board which may also levy penalty points against the club in default.
We are in receipt of a correspondance from Brian Lee at the Conference and will be making further decisions today on how to deal with it.
I have zero confidence that the conference will do anything more about this. To follow through their actions so far, it just stinks of mistakes, cover ups and fudges - if these extracts above are correct, they haven't even applied the points deduction as they should, according to their own rules.
And they didn't even do it consistently in the case of Crawley until after the appeal. According to the rules above we should have lost 11 points, but they knew doing that they'd open themselves up to a shitstorm of complaints and their incompetence would be further publicised. They got away with only deducting us 5 points in the hope we'd meekly accept it and it would go away - which, let's face it, it has and is looking likely to cost us a playoff place.
The delay of the investigation results was horribly predictable. It'll come out after the playoff final and while accepting no blame, will make a number of changes to the process.
And they didn't even do it consistently in the case of Crawley until after the appeal. According to the rules above we should have lost 11 points, but they knew doing that they'd open themselves up to a shitstorm of complaints and their incompetence would be further publicised. They got away with only deducting us 5 points in the hope we'd meekly accept it and it would go away - which, let's face it, it has and is looking likely to cost us a playoff place.
The delay of the investigation results was horribly predictable. It'll come out after the playoff final and while accepting no blame, will make a number of changes to the process.
Reply from conference received this week
"When a Player Registration is received at the Conference Office receipt is confirmed to the Club by issuing a registration number, a signed counterfoil and at regular intervals a print-out containing a list of all the players registered for each Club. (Once the season has commenced a registration is also confirmed by the sending of an e:mail). On a rare occasion when none of the above confirmations have been received, for example when a form is transmitted late, or outside Office hours on a Friday evening or a Saturday morning, the club Secretary would normally telephone to seek confirmation. The database for player registrations is therefore sound. But it only records registrations that have been received and consequently relies on a Club's observance of the above confirmations.
Your suggestion the elegibility of the players should be checked before the game, a task that can only be undertaken by the Club is correct. A Club's responsibility to ensure it fields only eligible players is absolute and this responsibility is not affected by subsequent Office procedures. In four cases this season it has been found Clubs have fielded players prior to receipt of any of the above confirmations. If receipt of any of the above confirmations had been checked by Clubs, none would have fielded an unregistered (inelegible) player.
The Football Conference has already strengthened its procedures to assist Clubs, and following an on-going review it expects to continue revising its methods to ensure no more Clubs repeat the errors that have occured at four Clubs so far this season. "
A bit of insight into what the procedures are (or were?).
"When a Player Registration is received at the Conference Office receipt is confirmed to the Club by issuing a registration number, a signed counterfoil and at regular intervals a print-out containing a list of all the players registered for each Club. (Once the season has commenced a registration is also confirmed by the sending of an e:mail). On a rare occasion when none of the above confirmations have been received, for example when a form is transmitted late, or outside Office hours on a Friday evening or a Saturday morning, the club Secretary would normally telephone to seek confirmation. The database for player registrations is therefore sound. But it only records registrations that have been received and consequently relies on a Club's observance of the above confirmations.
Your suggestion the elegibility of the players should be checked before the game, a task that can only be undertaken by the Club is correct. A Club's responsibility to ensure it fields only eligible players is absolute and this responsibility is not affected by subsequent Office procedures. In four cases this season it has been found Clubs have fielded players prior to receipt of any of the above confirmations. If receipt of any of the above confirmations had been checked by Clubs, none would have fielded an unregistered (inelegible) player.
The Football Conference has already strengthened its procedures to assist Clubs, and following an on-going review it expects to continue revising its methods to ensure no more Clubs repeat the errors that have occured at four Clubs so far this season. "
A bit of insight into what the procedures are (or were?).
What happened to OUFC was the form never made it to Conference HQ (or got lost at their end) and the club forgot to follow up checking that the registration number had been issued by the Conference.
Procedures have now been tightened at both ends.
1. Two people at the club are now responsible for checking that we get the registration numbers back.
2. The registration numbers have to go on the team sheets next to the players names.
Procedures have now been tightened at both ends.
1. Two people at the club are now responsible for checking that we get the registration numbers back.
2. The registration numbers have to go on the team sheets next to the players names.
Those procedures in the letter don't actually sound that bad as the Conference do acknowledge receipt of the form back to the Club, giving the Club the opportunity to check the registration has been received. For the Conference to check 68 teams' registrations each Monday would probably take the best part of a day for one person doing it manually.
Nonetheless, the procedures didn't work for 4 teams this season and for the mistakes not to be picked up for months is/was a definite shortcoming.
Nonetheless, the procedures didn't work for 4 teams this season and for the mistakes not to be picked up for months is/was a definite shortcoming.
Yes, it’s a tear off strip at the bottom of the form which is sent back from Conference HQ.
Seems simple to me in terms of getting things right at the club’s end. The club just needed a piece of paper containing a grid with the players names next to them followed by two boxes saying “form sent on dd/mm/yy
Seems simple to me in terms of getting things right at the club’s end. The club just needed a piece of paper containing a grid with the players names next to them followed by two boxes saying “form sent on dd/mm/yy
If the Conference / the Club had been a bit more informative a lot earlier about what had happened I could have saved myself writing three letters. I doubt quite so many people would have signed the petition either.
It now seems to me that both sides can be seen to be at fault, possibly each was assuming that the other was doing the checking. OUFC weren't checking that they got back a player registration, and the Conference weren't checking that the players were registered after the games. In hindsight it is easy to see these flaws, but at the time you don't think those checks are necessary. Obviously the procedures have now changed for the better.
Still doesn't explain the different versions of the rule regarding substitutes. The Oxvox version is the same as the one The FA sent me, which I read as only allowing discretion for non-playing subs.
It now seems to me that both sides can be seen to be at fault, possibly each was assuming that the other was doing the checking. OUFC weren't checking that they got back a player registration, and the Conference weren't checking that the players were registered after the games. In hindsight it is easy to see these flaws, but at the time you don't think those checks are necessary. Obviously the procedures have now changed for the better.
Still doesn't explain the different versions of the rule regarding substitutes. The Oxvox version is the same as the one The FA sent me, which I read as only allowing discretion for non-playing subs.
Re:
That’s because OxVox were not told what exactly what went wrong until after the petition was launched. Or they didn’t ask. Or they did ask and they were refused that information."slappy" wrote:If the Conference / the Club had been a bit more informative a lot earlier about what had happened I could have saved myself writing three letters. I doubt quite so many people would have signed the petition either.
I sent my letter on 5 Feb to the Conference and they replied 2 March, which is about a 3 week turn around. I don't think it is a coincidence the reply was the Monday after the Crawley appeal decision. The club were probably legally bound not to disclose matters. I perhaps should have asked permission to type out the Conference letter, but it seems to be fairly general and non-controversial / non-specific as to the exact circumstances regarding us, so I don't think it will cause trouble putting it on here.
Re:
"Snake" wrote: Also, while 4 teams did indeed cock up, 64 appear not to have done.
Well we ASSUME that 64 teams haven't, but because the Conference have not answered Radley's direct question, which asked them to confirm that they had double checked each players registration and that there were no further ticking timebombs, we don't actually know that.
Should OxVox NOW ask them that direct question publicly?
I think so...........