www.altyfans.co.uk
General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: markecky on March 26, 2007, 03:10:26 PM
-
Its amazing what threats of the European courts of human rights can do. Looks like the FA were far more scared of them than us.
I wish no ill on AFC Wimbledon at all but that would be a real kick in the b***ocks if we were now in Conference North.
-
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Maybe we can get some sort of explanation!!!!*
*maybe pigs will fly and hell will freeze over!
-
Is anyone really that surprised? It is always one rule for one and another for everyone else.
There is no doubt that we weren't wanted in the Conference last season. Looks like we are going to annoy a few suits again by staying up and tarnishing the reputation of this 'professional' league.
I doubt anyone at the club would have the time or the inclination, but we could really make a nuisance of ourselves with the FA over this and DEMAND a full explaination.
-
http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/news.php?Psection_id=2&Psub_section_id=1&Open=2566
-
Is this new 'precedent' being set nicely in time for Accrington's hearing this week, I wonder?
Of course it is. The nostalgia of the milk advert can live on for another season.
Disgusting. The right decision, but disgusting nonetheless.
-
I think that might be a very astute observation.
-
Just been told that the fine has not been increased but confirmed at £400
-
Southern team in getting away with something shocker. Look at Crawley and AFC Wimbledon against Scarboro and Altrincham.
It just a joke and if we were in the Conference North I would be VERY annoyed. Thats not to say I'm not very p*ssed off by it all now.
Typical one rule example and setting up Accrington to be saved.
-
According to the BBC website (see my earlier post) both Accrington and Hereford are Non League sides already - bit of a pisser for Hereford IMO :o
-
Surely you have to take into account the precedent which was set last season? Do they not have a procedure in place whereby someone says," the exact same thing happened last year and in that instance the club was docked 18 points, therefore the same will apply to you".
What do they do at these hearings, toss a coin? No doubt they're all in the bar at FA HQ as we speak quaffing brandy and dribbling down their suits.
Idiots!
-
From thefa.com:
At an FA Appeal Board meeting today, the points deduction imposed on AFC Wimbledon by the Ryman League was reduced from 18 points to three points.
The points had been deducted after the club fielded an ineligible player, Jermaine Darlington, who had previously played for Cardiff City and had not obtained international clearance before representing AFC Wimbledon.
The Appeal Board ruled that, although the Ryman League had not misinterpreted its rules on eligibility and the decision to deduct 18 points was wholly in accordance with those rules, given the specific and unusual circumstances the deduction of 18 points was excessive.
The £400 fine imposed by the league was not reduced.
Go figure!!
-
Gary,
I don't understand - both Crawley and Scarborough were deducted 10 points for going into Administration. Treated the same just depended upon where they were in the league at the time of the deduction.
-
Crawley have been given chance after chance and keep being allowed to extend deadlines.
They should have been chucked out before the season started, like Scarboro were !
Its a total FARCE
-
So, let me get this right....
Consistency good.....
FA bad!
Awww, did I get that right?
-
I am very much looking forward to John Laidlar's thinly velied sarcasm and incredulity when he reports this on the official site. :D
-
Gary,
I don't understand - both Crawley and Scarborough were deducted 10 points for going into Administration. Treated the same just depended upon where they were in the league at the time of the deduction.
Not true although Accrington are a northern team so its not a north/south thing cos they seem to have the fa silver spoon in their mouths too!
However Crawley have been blatantly flouting the rules of admin since it happened and they are laughing in the face of their own fans and every club who fights to survive week in week out!
Crawley didnt get relegated either, scarboro's 10 points wouldnt have left them below alty. To me it seems ridiculous, that they treated scarboro and crawley so differently, even if it did keep us up!
Fair play to AFC Wimbledon, I wouldnt want most clubs to go through what we did last season, them included, so its a nice ending. But for f**ks sake, how can our circumstances be any less UNUSUAL than theirs! We got our player from an English club! Is that not UNUSUAL in an International Clearance case in England?????????
Football is officially on its arse!
-
The FA reason/excuse* is bull$&%^
*delete as applicable
-
Gary,
I don't understand - both Crawley and Scarborough were deducted 10 points for going into Administration. Treated the same just depended upon where they were in the league at the time of the deduction.
Scarborough were first relegated, and then deducted 10 points for administration, so the deduction was enforced in this season, in the Conf North.
-
I think we are maybe being a bit paranoid about Accrington. I suspect it more West Ham that they are trying to set a precedent for.
-
Is there anyway in which we can appeal for some sort of compensation now that this has happened? not really fair that we got slapped with a £1000 fine and 18 points when 10 months later wimbledon get the same punishment reduced! that said im glad that wimbledon have had their penalty reduced. not sure id have quite the same sentiments were we toiling away in nationwide north this season.
-
But they were relegated because of those 'breach of rules' so got punished in that season (season we stayed up even though we finished below them with the 18 point deduction) so why punish AGAIN in a new season ?
But the point is that IF they have enforced the rules so strictly for them then why are Crawley allowed to drag this on for as long as they have ?
Either way it seems that certain clubs get better treated than others. Thats my opinion. Maybe its cos AFC Wimbledon are a 'fans club' and all that as well ?
Sorry but I really couldn't care less about any other club, if I did I'd join all the supporters trusts \ membership schemes and live in one big happy footballing community but thats just not for me, but when some other club gets off with something very similair to what we got punished for then it just seems unfair and I can't believe its happened... Sorry I CAN believe its happened to be fair as the English FA are a joke and another reason to not support the national side as they are representatives of them.
Anyway rant over. I'm sure my views have been put across.
suspect it more West Ham that they are trying to set a precedent for.
Knew there'd be a Southern team to be saved. ;D
-
I think this whole thing stinks. Our appeal was turned down due to "no merits" yet AFC Wimbledon have theirs upheld and penalty reduced. Something is not quite right here! Although i am very happy for AFC wimbledon, i am stunned that the FA have acted in this way. How can they dish out different punishments for the same offence?
Even taking the rules are rules angle, the FA comment that Ryman League DID NOT mis-interpret the rules and acted accordingly (18pts docked)
so why reduce the penalty?? It seems rather strange and shows the FA making rules up as they go along.
-
So how the hell are the FA going to deal with Accrington? Surely they have made it more difficult for themselves as they can't use "Rules are Rules" as they are clearly not and Stanley coudl just use AFC Wimbledon as an example to not lose points were as the FA COULD have easily just used us (and AFC Wimbledon if they had the guts) to uphold it.
I can't figure out how the FA can now get away with punishing Accrington as that would seem unfair on them as AFC Wimbledon got away with it. I suppose it could depend how each league interprets the rules ?
-
Delighted that Wimbledon were treated far better than us.
Legally we're in an odd position. If we had the cash I'd say take this all the way but as we don't let's just be pragmatic about it.
Leave it, move on.
Fingers crossed Stanley get whacked though.
-
I am very much looking forward to John Laidlar's thinly velied sarcasm and incredulity when he reports this on the official site.
Mr Laidlar doesn't let us down yet again! I think he sums up how many of us are feeling very well. Can we send him down to the FA and see what damage and embarrassment he can cause? :D
From Altrinchamfc.com:
F.A.RCE
The BBC reports that "AFC Wimbledon have had their points deduction reduced from 18 to three by an FA appeal board. In February the Ryman League appeals committee had handed out the more severe sanction for fielding a player without international clearance. The Dons had already been expelled from the FA Trophy for utilising midfielder Jermaine Darlington. Originally they had points taken off for the 11 games in which the former Cardiff player featured for them. The £400 fine imposed upon the club for breaching three league rules has not been reduced. The appeal board ruled that, although the Ryman League had not misinterpreted its rules on eligibility and the decision to deduct 18 points was wholly in accordance with those rules, given the specific and unusual circumstances the deduction of 18 points was excessive".
Altrincham had 18 points deducted last season when James Robinson's former club failed to get international clearance before he joined us. One wonders what the "specific and unusual circumstances" may be in the AFC Wimbledon case; surely the fact that prime minister Tony Blair expressed his support for AFC recently in the House of Commons has nothing to do with it? Also Altrincham got fined £1,000 not £400.
Whilst pleased that AFC Wimbledon have had their sentence lightened where is the consistency in this? Most importantly, it was so obvious when we got clobbered by the FA last year that the problem would rear its head again because the FA did nothing to prevent that happening. And it will happen again...
So Altrincham are left with a record that shows them having finished bottom of the league last season when they did not - will the FA do anything about that?
And a year after our debacle, the BBC reports that "Accrington Stanley have lodged an appeal against the dismissal of striker David Brown in Saturday's vital 2-0 victory over Hereford United. Brown scored against his former club to help Stanley secure a second successive win before being sent off for a late foul on Danny Thomas. However, Accrington hope to get the decision overturned. Meanwhile, Accrington face a hearing on Friday to answer the League's charge of fielding ineligible players".
-
Delighted that Wimbledon were treated far better than us.
Can't say I agree and certainly would not agree if it was Redditch we were playing tomo in the conference north.
The FA Should have changed the rules after what happened to us but they didn't, all they seem to have done is change the rules depending on who you are when it should be the same for all.
Stanley can't get docked now as far as I see it as that wouldn't be fair on them. The FA have made that decision very easy for themselves.
I don't understand how the points can be 'reduced' Surely you are either guilty or not guilty and there is no grey area or else that means you could just think of a number and dock as many or little points as you please.
Its all a big joke but at the moment I don't see the funny side
-
Its hard to see what the FA are thinking, they will never say what the different cicumstances are between alty and AFC Wim. As far as i can see the decision further reduces (if its even possible) the credibility of the FA.
Again this decision poses more questions, many of which will go unanswered.
-
The more I think about it, the more I think they have one eye on the West Ham situation who are up for a similar offence.
They can't be seen to mete out a similar punishment to Wet Spam as they did to Alty because it would be so high profile. If we caused a minor ripple with our situation, then Wet Spam would create a tidal wave, such is the Premier League's interest worldwide. Plus Wet Spam would have the clout and resource to challenge the decision, through the courts if neccessary that we evidently didn't. This would show the FA up to be the incompetent T**ts that they really are.
This way they can just give them a small points deduction and cite AFC Wimbledon as the example.
-
The more I think about it, the more I think they have one eye on the West Ham situation who are up for a similar offence.
I thought the FA were charging the hammers with breaches of the transfer system. not fielding a player without international clearence. Im looking towards Accrington, and what the FA will do there. The more i think about it, the more the whole thing stinks. There is a rule, it was broken, there is the punishment end of story...
I thnk the club should query the decision through the FA. With no malice intended, sinmply to say "we were docked 18 pts for this, they were docked 3pts, why is there a 15pts difference between punishments for the same offence?"
It also seems that the press view is that the punishment was over-excessive in teh first place, but despite the high profile we recieved last season, none are actually saying "look, this happened to them, they were docked 18pts, why the difference?".
Overall, im not impressed with the FA at all - they simply know how to mess everything up.
-
Can I just say as an AFC Wimbledon Womble that I really feel for you guys at the moment. You should have had a similar punishment last year, or less. I, and many other AFCW supporters signed your petition little thinking we would be in the same position a year later. Thanks to all of you that signed our petition and showed support - we all appreciate it. I would love to see somebody take your case to court now to claim compensation from the FA; little chance of winning though.
Hopefully the rules will now be clarified and no other club will be put in the position that you an us have been in through an admin error, rather than blatent cheating like Boston.
Thanks again for your support, and the best of luck on and off the pitch.
Colin
-
Thanks Colin. I don't know exactly what the circumstances were that meant your punishment was reduced and not ours, but I'm glad the FA were reasonable with you. Whatever the differences in the way the FA percieved our respective cases, I fear you are 100% correct in saying that any appeal for compensation will get nowhere.
-
We'll have to wait for the full details to be published but; 1) Jermaine Darlington had retired from football when he joined us so we didn't sign him from Cardiff - they held his papers as his last club. 2) 86 MPs signing an Early Day Motion. 3) Many MPs wrote to the FA saying the punishment didn't fit the "crime". 4) Tony Blair saying it was a daft rule. 5) 10,000+ Sigs on the petition.
A lot of the support we got from the MPs was because of the uproar in football last year with your punishment when nothing much was done by them. I think there was a bit of guilt. Also, as a club in SW London formed out of the ashes after our club was stolen, we were of a lot more interest to the media than a village team oop north called Altrysomething ;)
If we'd lost the appeal we could have played you in a match for the "-18point" cup - but it would still be good to meet you in a friendly some time.
Colin
-
This is a message on our AFC Wimbledon guestbook this evening from "Spanish Don" (our Madrid section of the club)
"Altrincham FC shows you there are still genuine folks left in the game. Got a congratulatory email from one of their supporters tonight, accepting that the FA truly shafted them for their 18 points last year... and that we truly didn't deserve to be unfairly treated as they were this time round - simply class!"
You are all welcome to visit:
http://www.afcwgb.co.uk/gb.php
Colin
-
To me it seems at last the FA have made the right decision.
This is the decision we should have had and it seems a fair punishment for the initial crime of an admisitrative error rather than continuing to punish for the one error every time the player plays.
Would have been far more sensible for the FA to have set this precident with us last year.
They have , as usual, made themselves look stupid with an inconsistent treatment of two clubs who had done exactly the same thing and have set themselves up to look like ar$es.
Congratulations AFC Wimbledon....I can't see how we can say the FA decision against us was ludicrous and then say AFC Wimbledon should have got the same on the rules are rules basis which we made a mockery of a year ago.
When you look at Scarboro and Crawley, clearly Scarboro were in genuine financial problems which all depended on the sale of their ground which was being held up....in the interim they did whatever they could do to keep their heads above water. Crawley meanwhile, I think there was a piece on the official website where the owners admitted they had used administration as a way to get rid of players on contracts ie flouting the rules....even this statement went under the Moules radar...but both clubs should have recieved the same penalty which was a 10 point penalty for the following season whereas Scarboro also got kicked out of the league...in then end scarboro have been the real losers and Boston the great beneficeries of the ludicrous rules are rules or are they debacle.
-
After a nights sleep im still livid about all this!
Alls well that ends well for us, we stayed in the conference and now we could be here yet again next season on merit alone. Im happy for the wombles as well because justice was served correctly.
But this is just a shambles, how can a body like the FA that generates so much income be run so badly? I suppose the question is, would the deduction have been reduced to 3 points yesterday if we were languishing in the conference north because of last year? Not a chance!
So in theory its poor Scarboro who have felt the sh*tty end of the stick again, their relegation has subsequently saved 2 clubs whilst they are still in risk of a second relegation. Its ludicrous that Crawley can field a team every week let alone still in the bloody conference!
Ps if we did receive any compensation I think it should be given to Mr Woodward to do with as he chooses!
-
I think this whole thing stinks. Our appeal was turned down due to "no merits" yet AFC Wimbledon have theirs upheld and penalty reduced. Something is not quite right here! Although i am very happy for AFC wimbledon, i am stunned that the FA have acted in this way. How can they dish out different punishments for the same offence?
Perhaps no-one was threatening law suits or getting all the other clubs to email the FA?
-
As WotaWally says, AFC Wimbledon have far more media clout than us. Imagine if FCUM had been pulled up over the same offence!! That's the reason for the double standards if you ask me.
Same for Accrington, all the misty eyed sentimentality (cue grainy old pictures of Peel Park and that milk advert) will probably come into play...
-
Yes.
Perhaps there might have been a difference in the outcome if AFC Wimbledon had been playing in the same league as FGR.
And whilst I'm on that subject, did you read that in the NLP at the weekend? I nearly fell off the chair. Colin Peake as one of the nominations for Administrator of the Year or some such like !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the F**k's all that about?
Now if there was a prize for being a cheeky, hard-faced, duplicitous, back-stabbing, underhanded, sh*tshovelling b*****d of the Year, he'd get my vote for that one!
PS: Sorry about the above rant. It's very unlike me as regular readers of the site will know but I do feel much better for it ::) ::)
-
Did you miss out on any prize money by effectively finishing bottom, when you didn't ?
-
Did you miss out on any prize money by effectively finishing bottom, when you didn't ?
Thats a good point, cant we claim back the 10.76 we should have got for coming 18th? ;)
-
Just wondered is Wales a foreign country,maybe thats the special circumstances,and would you need international clearance for someone who has played in wales?
-
As WotaWally says, AFC Wimbledon have far more media clout than us. Imagine if FCUM had been pulled up over the same offence!! That's the reason for the double standards if you ask me.
Same for Accrington, all the misty eyed sentimentality (cue grainy old pictures of Peel Park and that milk advert) will probably come into play...
Maybe we just didnt push hard enough to defend ourselves?
-
Its simple - reduce our penalty from 18 to 3 points (we'll take them this season - like Scarbro got their -10 this season), and we're in the playoff places...It's only fair
-
Brilliant!
No wonder you're in Management, Guru!
-
Has anyone got John Moules e-mail address? I'd love to ask him about this one.
-
Its simple - reduce our penalty from 18 to 3 points (we'll take them this season - like Scarbro got their -10 this season), and we're in the playoff places...It's only fair
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but we'd still only be 7th because of our goal difference :-\
I'd take it though ;)
-
Has anyone got John Moules e-mail address? I'd love to ask him about this one.
john@footballconference.co.uk
-
As WotaWally says, AFC Wimbledon have far more media clout than us. Imagine if FCUM had been pulled up over the same offence!! That's the reason for the double standards if you ask me.
Same for Accrington, all the misty eyed sentimentality (cue grainy old pictures of Peel Park and that milk advert) will probably come into play...
Maybe we just didnt push hard enough to defend ourselves?
Don't forget that you went through this first. You had nobody to base your campaign on. We learnt from what you did, both supporters and club officials, and that was a big help in organising our campaign. Sad for you, but true.
Also we had Jim Sturman QC (He has acted for Chelsea Football Club, Tottenham Hotspur Football Club,and numerous Premiership players) working for us because he knows our chairman. I believe they were in contact with your chairman, which would also have been a help for us.
If, God forbid, if the FA don't now clarify their rules and pull this one on another club - the FA will probably land up apologising and offering the accused club automatic promotion. Thinking about it, the next club could well be Accrington >:(
-
In all honesty Accrington were in a better position than most to avoid this sort of situation after last years experience. I would like to think that the FA may reflect on this and punish them accordingly. Its harsh but they have little case, AFC Wimbledon had a better case.
Besides I imagine that the Stanley legal team is made of 1 duty solicitor type (possibly even Arnie) who has only ever dealt with interbreading cases and cousins divorcing so in that respect they haven't got a leg to stand on!
-
Accrington will get away with it ... and so will West Ham.
The precedent has now been set - the system is bent but we've just got to live with it and move on unfortunately.
The best response we could give is to stay up again this year when more than a few clubs would be glad to see the back of us.
Well b*****ks to them all - we're part-time and proud of it, we're in the black and we're here on merit so they'll have to lump it! >:(
-
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156130&command=displayContent&sourceNode=201483&home=yes&sports=yes&more_nodeId2=156141&contentPK=16977248
-
It seems, and quite rightly in my view that the sympathy for Mr Evans and Boston Utd is becoming quite sparse.
You do have to feel for the real fans though, those whose footballing enjoyment and future is jeopardised by people with personal agendas and by events over which they have had no control.
-
Thanks Jimmy for Mr. Moules's e-mail address. His response, as many probably predicted, was to blame the FA for the contradictory decisions and to offer me their mail address, as he appears to be as much in the dark as anybody else re the AFC Wimbledon decision. At least he was good enough to get back to me. Does anybody know if Altrincham FC intend to contact the FA themselves to ask about lost points and money?
-
The Lancashire club could be docked seven points, handing the third-bottom Pilgrims a potential lifeline.
"Everyone in the Football League knows what should happen and that is a point deduction," declared Evans.
Bury and non-league AFC Wimbledon have been thrown out of the FA Cup and docked points respectively this season.
However, Wimbledon have this week seen their 18-point deduction reduced to just three by the FA. Accrington's fate will be decided by a Football League panel.
surely everyone in the football league (and non league too) should know that rent should be payed
-
I can just imagine the shout at Boston: "Rent, boys!"
-
Peake me if you so wish, but credit to Mr Moules for at least replying to Louise. I never thought he would.
I suppose JM was only 'applying' the rules last year which the club had inadvertently broke due to the failure of another club. We also know he was under pressure to apply the rules or others may have resorted to legal action.............effectively risking messing up the whole structure of Conf / Conf N / Conf S for the next season.
The real culprits in all this now seem to be the FA, who are consistently inconsistent, run football like some sort of secret society and never have to explain there actions to anybody !
-
There were a lot of hidden agenda about last year which you are taking no account of.
There is no earthly why this solution for Wimbledon could not have been adopted last year for us.
... apart from the cowardice of Moules et al in the face of several of the propagators of these hidden agendas.
By the way at least one (if not more) of these agenda-mongers will no longer be in the CN next year!
-
I agree with Mick, to my mind Moules' hands were tied by the circumstances he found himself in.
The Conference rules allowed no consideration of mitigating circumstances and we are all well aware of the threatened legal action from certain quarters. There was really little else the Conference could do.
The FA could have made the correct decision, however they bottled it.
-
Agree with you Jimmy. This is basically what Mr. Moules has implied in his e-mail to me. Is there any point anyone contacting the FA to complain about the unfairness of it all as it does leave a rather bad taste in the throat?