Rage Online

&quotMooro&quot wrote:

&quotDr Bob&quot wrote:

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:Another thing bugging me....this business about &quothaving known since November&quot. Does it normally take two months for this sort of thing to arrive at a hearing? If not, why in this instance?

Quite - to which I would add, why did it take until November to come to light? Mansfield had fewer matches affected and points deducted, as well as more matches to try to make them up (albeit largely unsuccessfully).

Apparently, teamsheets are only checked against registration records periodically at Conference level and below rather than every time, so I guess it is possible that with hutch in and out of the side it could have been missed for some time.

What would you reckon about the length of time between detection and hearing though?

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:

&quotMooro&quot wrote:

&quotDr Bob&quot wrote: Quite - to which I would add, why did it take until November to come to light? Mansfield had fewer matches affected and points deducted, as well as more matches to try to make them up (albeit largely unsuccessfully).

Apparently, teamsheets are only checked against registration records periodically at Conference level and below rather than every time, so I guess it is possible that with hutch in and out of the side it could have been missed for some time.

What would you reckon about the length of time between detection and hearing though?

Probably some blazer-filled gathering to attend that proved more attractive than facing up to the inefficiencies of their own processes. Most likely the committee that sat are only in the office on the same day about five times a year anyway....

Possibly, but given that it seems unusual to me, I wouldn't have thought so.

Maybe it took them that long to sift through their filing cabinets and unchecked in-boxes to determine that they couldn't find the missing paperwork?

This stuff still seems shrouded in mystery to me - if we were 100% wrong then they should have deducted 11 points, if we were right then there should have been no penalty. So why the middle ground unless both parties were to blame? What did go on here, ffs?

As for the points penalty, then I think it’s worth an appeal. 5 points wrecks a season (and the attendances till May and the ST sales afterwards) just when we did have some hope in the same way as 11 would have done. Even 15 points would have probably been ok in terms of surviving relegation, and that’s without other club secretaries in this League being caught with their trousers down.

As Mally says in a different thread, we could miss out on the play-offs by four points, and I know that every time I see that stupid Division V table from now until forever more I’d be mentally adding 5 points and seeing where we could have been.

Overall, the punishment does not fit the crime of (probably) forgetting to do a bit of paperwork and in cases like these in the future a fine would be much more proportionate. And that’s not just for Oxford, but for all other clubs, unless a distinct and deliberate advantage had been sought by this ‘cheating’.

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.

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote: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.

Yes, of course lets find out what actually happened in detail. For what its worth my steer on this re OxVox is to keep well out of pontificating to the press pending further information being made available. A couple of us had heard there were admin troubles looming but not on this scale!

As to Mick, hmm.. and what if we win our appeal then? Mick gets us for unfair dismissal. Don't think it's that easy.

To me, this is a Conference engendered 'smoke filled room deal', they have to be seen to punish us to appease other point deductee sufferers but not by so many points to slay the golden goose that is Oxford United. Either we are guilty or not. I say.. APPEAL.

FFS it's not as if we went into administration is it? A poxy little form seemingly missing for a player that already been with us for two seasons. Under existing contract! What 'other club' has been affected?

Tinpot, small time, chaotic.

Will be interesting to see the team response tomorrow night. Who knows, it may all end up at Wembley. Stranger things have happened.

Not that my view counts for much, but I don’t want Mick to resign over one piece of paperwork when he’s dealt successfully with thousands in the past.

/

By the way, AO, it would be nice if, just for once, if OxVox got its collective arse off the fence rather than supplying sound bites to the local media after an event. We can all do that, and indeed do on here.

And I say appeal as well, because football is a game of physical skill and not about who’s best at satisfying the petty and sometimes out-of-date needs of its bureaucrats, some of whom refuse to use “new technology

[quote=&quotSnake&quot]Not that my view counts for much, but I don’t want Mick to resign over one piece of paperwork when he’s dealt successfully with thousands in the past.

/

By the way, AO, it would be nice if, just for once, if OxVox got its collective arse off the fence rather than supplying sound bites to the local media after an event. We can all do that, and indeed do on here.

And I say appeal as well, because football is a game of physical skill and not about who’s best at satisfying the petty and sometimes out-of-date needs of its bureaucrats, some of whom refuse to use “new technology

[quote=&quotAscension Ox&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot]Not that my view counts for much, but I don’t want Mick to resign over one piece of paperwork when he’s dealt successfully with thousands in the past.

/

By the way, AO, it would be nice if, just for once, if OxVox got its collective arse off the fence rather than supplying sound bites to the local media after an event. We can all do that, and indeed do on here.

And I say appeal as well, because football is a game of physical skill and not about who’s best at satisfying the petty and sometimes out-of-date needs of its bureaucrats, some of whom refuse to use “new technology

&quotMooro&quot wrote:

&quotboris&quot wrote:

&quotMooro&quot wrote:
Interestingly, Bognor Regis, who are also at a hearing today, are pleading guilty to the first instance (ie. game) in which the player played, but not gulity to subsequent games on the grounds the error should have been picked up....

That's an odd defence, because if they're admitting it's an error then technically they're still guilty, whether or not it should have been picked up. (Ignorance of the law, and all that.

I think they are fully aware of all that, but are just trying to make a point

And, in making their point, they have been docked seven.

You couldn't make it up!

[quote=&quotSnake&quot][quote=&quotAscension Ox&quot][quote=&quotSnake&quot]Not that my view counts for much, but I don’t want Mick to resign over one piece of paperwork when he’s dealt successfully with thousands in the past.

/

By the way, AO, it would be nice if, just for once, if OxVox got its collective arse off the fence rather than supplying sound bites to the local media after an event. We can all do that, and indeed do on here.

And I say appeal as well, because football is a game of physical skill and not about who’s best at satisfying the petty and sometimes out-of-date needs of its bureaucrats, some of whom refuse to use “new technology

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote: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.

&quotMally&quot wrote:

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote: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.

So it would. But I've been looking around for that &quotfull explanation&quot and the club, which has had every opportunity to provide me with same, hasn't done so.

So in the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm going to take the view that Mick Brown has cocked up and that he should have the principle to offer his resignation by way of recompense. And I don't think he gets a free pass for his &quotyears of service to the club&quot, and all the rest of the blah blah blah.

&quotAscension Ox&quot wrote:As to Mick, hmm.. and what if we win our appeal then? Mick gets us for unfair dismissal.

What, when he's resigned? I think you're thinking of &quotconstructive dismissal&quot and in this instance he wouldn't have a case.

&quotMally&quot wrote:

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote: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.