www.altyfans.co.uk
General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: gazwarrington on March 30, 2007, 03:42:08 PM
-
Watch this space.
I'm furious. too furious to think straight at the moment but I think something NEEDS to be done.
-
We could send each of the members on today's FA panel a Stafford Rangers season ticket for next year.
That would teach them.
-
Do we know who was actually on the panel which came up with this decision?
-
Do we know who was actually on the panel which came up with this decision?
Ronald McDonald, A. Clown, Mickey Mouse, E. Whalley.
-
Do we know who was actually on the panel which came up with this decision?
Possibly the same imbeciles who appointed Steve McClaren?
-
I'm sorry but failing to see funny side. We have lost MONEY and went through a lot of stress last season and for something that coudl have been avoided.
If I was a director I would be after compensation.
ITS A F*CKING DISGRACE
-
Watch this space.
I'm furious. too furious to think straight at the moment but I think something NEEDS to be done.
Who do you hate more at the moment Thomson or the f a? They have both took this club for a ride.
-
I'm sorry but failing to see funny side. We have lost MONEY and went through a lot of stress last season and for something that coudl have been avoided.
If I was a director I would be after compensation.
ITS A F*CKING DISGRACE
Just to re-iterate something i said before, any compo we receive should surely go towards Mike Woodward and the bill he footed on our behalf.
There were tears shed last season by a lot of people over this decision, games and great days for the club (Grays H) were ruined by the saga that ensued in the whole fiasco. Our appeal was turned down on grounds that now seem to be acceptable.
Watch this space whilst i find an e-mail for someone at the FA.
-
The FA.
But for a huge amount of fortune we would now be struggling (and make no mistake we WOULD be struggling) in Conf North.
Thomson has cost us money but not directly endangered our Conference status.
-
Do we know who was actually on the panel which came up with this decision?
For what has been reported, it was three senior people from the FA, picked randomly within their department. I dont think these were the same that formed the panel against us.
Gary, i can see your frustrations, but the decision against us was correct according to the rules of the game, despite how ludicrous these rules are.
What the club should now try and do is to seek out why the other decisions have been made that contravine the rules of the game as set down by the FA. I doubt the FA will do anything over our costs, or point deduction, but should accept their system is flawed. However as a small club in a low division, we lack the clout that larger clubs have.
-
I'm sorry but failing to see funny side. We have lost MONEY and went through a lot of stress last season and for something that coudl have been avoided.
If I was a director I would be after compensation.
ITS A F*CKING DISGRACE
Just to re-iterate something i said before, any compo we receive should surely go towards Mike Woodward and the bill he footed on our behalf.
There were tears shed last season by a lot of people over this decision, games and great days for the club (Grays H) were ruined by the saga that ensued in the whole fiasco. Our appeal was turned down on grounds that now seem to be acceptable.
Watch this space whilst i find an e-mail for someone at the FA.
Here the email address
completeandutterclowns@westitchedyouup.co.uk
-
the decision was correct until what has happened to AFC Wimbledon and Accrington. The decision now holds no grounds.
I will not let this lie. Its a disgrace.
I'm more angry now than I have ever been at Colin Peake.
We have basically been stitched up and Accy have got away with it all TWICE
-
I won't let this lie. Radio 5 live , Sky, BBC and everything for me.
Hopefully we will get their support as everyone hates the FA at the moment for appointing McClaren so maybe something else they could add to make the FA look like a shambles.
-
Thats the problem gary, when the AFC one was released, i emailed sky, radio 5 etc, saying how different these decisions were. Through the whole debate, NO ONE mentioned Altrincham or the decision previously taken by the FA. The press have been utterly slow to connect these things.
As i see it, the decision against us was right (even though it was overly harsh, but the rules are there, and unfortunately DO NOT TAKE ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION) however the decisions for AFC, and accrington are WRONG. I agree something needs to be done, and have said below i feel the club should be doing. Im sure the FA will try to fob us off with an excuse for their disgusting behaviour and agree other avenues should be looked to question why the FA continually make different decisions for the same offence.
-
Whether it was a right or wrong decision for us, all I ask for is CONSISTANCY.
It does seem like a one rule for one and one for another and I can not accept that.
Still not calmed down.
Maybe now that Accy and AFC wimbledon have had decision and that little englanders are annoyed at the FA it might be mentioned ?
-
yeh its a total f*cking joke. Now the total has been raised to 3 clubs, because West Ham will be finead a MAXIMUM of 3 points for fielding TWO ineligable players. Surely they should be fined the points that they won whilst they were on the pitch, and double that because it was two players. As for Accrington, this really p*sses me off, because they are also gaining popularuty with their recent promotion. And Wimbledon is just plain stupid. What made their appeal right? They have been fined 3 points, which means that they must have done something wrong because the FA would not fine you for nothing, so why just reduce it? I know it is a rather rushed comment but i hope you see where i am coming from.
-
I have e-mailed mr moules in order to try and get a contact address for the FA. More than a long shot but worth a try. Obviously i put my best e-mail voice on in order to impress.
Perhaps a better outlet is my friend the 'Short fat hairy' journo. He works in London and is a sports journo, maybe he will have a contact address for someone or just the format of their e-mails:
i.e. chris.edwards@thefa.com
and we can work out the rest. If it works we should bombard them with everything we have, politely, until they make some kind of comment or decision on their treatment of our club.
Lets not forget the hurt that everyone felt last year after the appeal.
-
We need an FA cup run more than ever next season now, just so we can show the FA what we really think of them, hopefully on TV.
I just can't let this lie.
I also have emailed Mr Moules. I DO NOT blame the Conference Board as their hands were SUPPOSED to be tied and its the useless FA that have let down one of its members.
-
I know someone who runs a TV company - he is looking for programmes to make
-
We need to generate some publicity - get on to Radio 5, the newspapers etc. Keep badgering them until they pick the story up - which they will if enough people complain.
What about contacting the guy on Radio 5 that questionned Moules on the radio last year - he seemed in support of us and was pretty scathing about the deduction.
-
On it as you type mate
-
I agree with the sentiments raised in this thread, however for the purposes of clarity the comparison should really be restricted to ourselves and AFC Wimbledon.
Bringing Accrington's treatment into the equation will only muddy the waters as; 1) The FA had nothing to do with the decision and 2) It was a completely different crime.
-
I agree with the sentiments raised in this thread, however for the purposes of clarity the comparison should really be restricted to ourselves and AFC Wimbledon.
Bringing Accrington's treatment into the equation will only muddy the waters as; 1) The FA had nothing to do with the decision and 2) It was a completely different crime.
They fielded two ineligable players. We fielded 1 ineligable player. Same thing
-
The person who 'chaired' the meeting with Accy was the same person who chaired our meeting.
Interesting ... Funny how he suddenly changes his views.
I have spoken to one of our directors and a letter has been sent to the FA and any reply will be shown to the fans. There is also a good article in the programme today about the clubs feelings towards what has happened in the past week with regards to our punishment and other clubs lack of punishment.
-
3 suggestions that might get the notice of the press:
Ideally at a home match (or the high profile match at dagenham & Redbridge, where there are likely to be cameras anyway) - how about some sort of high profile & peaceful demonstration to which we invite the media.
Possibly flyers to fans at other Conference games
Large banner(s) at ours or other games
-
Agree this is madness from the FA (I am sure they have the right to interfere in the FL decision on Accy whether they made the original decision or not)
What do we want out of any protest?
1) AFC Wimbledon to suffer as we did - surely not
2) The FA toapologise and retrospectively apply the same discretion to us and change the historic record so we did not finish bottom last year - Would be nice and I can't see why they wouldn't now as Peake doesn't care anymore
3) Compensation for costs we incurred last year - I don't think we'll get these as AFCW had to appeal too, so we wouldn't have got these back if they'd got it right the first time
4) Compensation for lost prize money - do you get any for finishing 19th?
5) Compensation for the pain and suffering for the time between appeal failure and SFC getting kicked out?- not sure we'd get anything for that
6) rule change - for the good of the game (only we mean that!)
7) Highlight to the world that those running the FA are a joke and should be fired - what good would that do us?
8 ) Just vent anger and make us feel better - will just make us look bitter, in the end the points deduction didn't really matter
So I'm all for making some fuss but it should be targeted at a specific objective otherwise we won't get anything. Personally I'd go for 2 (and 4 if there is anything to gain) from the above list - the rest are either unrealistic or just moaning and making us look bad, where as we came through the whole Robinson affair with dignity - lets not blow that away now.
-
I think it is worth them reviewing No 6. It is for the good of the game if there is consistency - with no mitigating circumstances (which seem to be random).
Compensation would be nice, if not for us but for the Grays chairman, Mr Woodward
-
i agree with altysmiffy, grays did a lot for us and we hsould thank them for what little we may have got out of it.
-
We should demand a proper explanation from the FA for the inconsistences at the very least - not that nonsense in the NLpaper this morning.
-
What did the NLP say (we don't get it in Scotland)?
-
The chair of the panel, who reduced AFC Wimledon's points reduction said that Altrincham's case was completely different without actually saying how! Aparently, AFC 'held their hands up from the start' and admitted their error, while we changed our lawyer whle the panel were having lunch! I don't really get it either!
-
John Moules has replied to my email with a contact at the FA to try.
So wait ...
'held their hands up from the start'
So therefore admitting THEY ARE GUILTY and therfore not having any reason to appeal ?
Surely if we had said "We are guilty" then we could not have appealed ? We argued the decision due to odd cicrumstances JUST LIKE Afc Wimbledon. I personally think that is a very poor excuse and actually creates more questions than answers.
-
John Moules has replied to my email with a contact at the FA to try.
So wait ...
'held their hands up from the start'
So therefore admitting THEY ARE GUILTY and therfore not having any reason to appeal ?
Surely if we had said "We are guilty" then we could not have appealed ? We argued the decision due to odd cicrumstances JUST LIKE Afc Wimbledon. I personally think that is a very poor excuse and actually creates more questions than answers.
Gaz - can you post the addy on here.
Would it be worth someone coing up with a gneric email we could copy and send/sign?
-
I need the NLP atrticle scanning \ copied to me at gazwarrington@hotmail.com so as I can see it for myself and hopefully pick holes in it.
-
The AFC Wimbledon appeal was based on the fact the punishment did not fit the crime.
As stated we admited all along that the crime had been commited (not getting international clearence for signing someone who was not currently playing). We accepted all along that the Ryman League were in their right to deduct 18points. .Once it was realised that a crime had been commited it was rectified inside an hour.
The crime only came to light as after Darlington was booked in a cup game it was flagged up by the FA. Therefore, going by the Ryman League rules, if he had not been booked until an FA Trophy final at the end of the season they would have deducted all the points we had gained with him playing.
As Tony Blair said in the PM questions in Parliment a couple of weeks ago, daft rules that someone ought to change.
What exactly was the Altrincham offence?
-
If anything, Altrincham's circumstances were more mitigating, as we had bought Robinson from an English club.
The FA: Is it sheep? Is it horse? Is it pig?...... Nooooo, it's Bull!
-
I agree with the sentiments raised in this thread, however for the purposes of clarity the comparison should really be restricted to ourselves and AFC Wimbledon.
Bringing Accrington's treatment into the equation will only muddy the waters as; 1) The FA had nothing to do with the decision and 2) It was a completely different crime.
They fielded two ineligable players. We fielded 1 ineligable player. Same thing
Not really.
The respective decisions were made by different bodies, the decisions were also made in accordance with two different sets of rules.
-
appreciate what youre saying jimmy but shouldnt all rules regarding ineligible players be the same, no matter what league you are in?
yet again its a case of 'one rule for some...'
-
I agree with the sentiments raised in this thread, however for the purposes of clarity the comparison should really be restricted to ourselves and AFC Wimbledon.
Bringing Accrington's treatment into the equation will only muddy the waters as; 1) The FA had nothing to do with the decision and 2) It was a completely different crime.
They fielded two ineligable players. We fielded 1 ineligable player. Same thing
Not really.
The respective decisions were made by different bodies, the decisions were also made in accordance with two different sets of rules.
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression the rules were the same in both leagues: lose every point gained while the ineligible player was playing in the team.
-
appreciate what youre saying jimmy but shouldnt all rules regarding ineligible players be the same, no matter what league you are in?
yet again its a case of 'one rule for some...'
Ideally, I suppose so.
The issue is that the rules between leagues are not consistent (yet there is no requirement for them to be so), rather than there being an inconsistency in the way both we and Accrington have been treated.
-
I agree with the sentiments raised in this thread, however for the purposes of clarity the comparison should really be restricted to ourselves and AFC Wimbledon.
Bringing Accrington's treatment into the equation will only muddy the waters as; 1) The FA had nothing to do with the decision and 2) It was a completely different crime.
They fielded two ineligable players. We fielded 1 ineligable player. Same thing
Not really.
The respective decisions were made by different bodies, the decisions were also made in accordance with two different sets of rules.
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression the rules were the same in both leagues: lose every point gained while the ineligible player was playing in the team.
I can't find a copy of the League rules, however it may be possible that mitigating circumstances can be taken into account whereas that wasn't the case for us.
-
IF thats the cqase we probable don't have an argument.
There is an argument, however (A BIG ONE) for the FA to make sure the rules are consistent.
I will always believe we have been hard done by, however.
-
The AFC Wimbledon appeal was based on the fact the punishment did not fit the crime.
As stated we admited all along that the crime had been commited (not getting international clearence for signing someone who was not currently playing). We accepted all along that the Ryman League were in their right to deduct 18points. .Once it was realised that a crime had been commited it was rectified inside an hour.
The crime only came to light as after Darlington was booked in a cup game it was flagged up by the FA. Therefore, going by the Ryman League rules, if he had not been booked until an FA Trophy final at the end of the season they would have deducted all the points we had gained with him playing.
As Tony Blair said in the PM questions in Parliment a couple of weeks ago, daft rules that someone ought to change.
What exactly was the Altrincham offence?
Unfortunately, it is an FA rule that despite a player retiring from football his registration would continue to be held with that club. In this case Cardiff have kept the registration, and AFC didn’t apply for ITC when signing the player. Though it is a simple mistake to make, and not helped by Cardiff, despite playing in an English league, having all their paperwork processed by the Wales FA.
The Altrincham offence was signing a player from another conference club, who hadn’t bothered to get international clearance for him (he had played a couple games over in Iceland). Therefore, in error Altrincham didn’t apply for int clearance (as Accrington should have done it). This matter only came to light when the player transferred to play in Australia. The club knew a mistake had taken place, and the conference deducted 18 pts. It was also rumoured that other clubs further helped secure the deduction, as alty were in a relegation flight. Only the financial resources of the grays chairman enabled an appeal over the "excessive points deduction" (very similar to AFC's reason for appeal??, ours was dismissed with no reason for appeal).
Both cases were unfortunate to attract the punishments, as both were simple mistakes that could (and should) have been picked up by both club secretaries. The FA clearly had a chance to amend the rules for the ITC, after altirncham and other decisions, chose not to alter the rules, what Altrincham fans didn’t want was other clubs to be severely affected by this rule. What simply mystifies me is how the FA appeals panel can claim "unusual circumstances" despite the fact that they confirm that the Ryman league DID NOT apply the rules improperly. The decision by the football league, in relation to Accrington is again strange, without seeing a copy of the league rule book, it is hard to comment on what legal reason the league may have adopted to reduce the punishment. Though many alty fans were horrified with the punishment thrown at Altrincham, it WAS in accord with FA rules. So why should one rule apply for one club but another, especially when the crimes are extremely similar (if not basically the same)???
Unfortunately, for some reason the FA have acted this way, despite our and other cases brought last season alone. As i have said earlier, the FA had a chance to edit/re-write/change the ITC rules. They haven’t, the punishment should be the same, it really makes the FA further look like the utter T**ts that they are. If i ran a company like the FA is run, i would be hounded out by shareholders, arrested, imprisoned and banned from running any company.
However the FA will not do anything about this, they will only point to "different circumstances" but won’t explain what these differences are. They will think that this will die down, after all were just a small part-time club – what can we do on our own? I have written to the FA with my observations, but haven’t had a reply (nor have i had a reply concerning last season's debacle). My sympathy is with AFC wimbledon, but as we repeatedly lectured last season “rules are rules”. So why the hell carnt the rule enforcer (the FA) enforce the rules correctly????????????????
-
I have an e-mail address for the FA. I have no reason not to post it on here so i will if Gary is ok with it.
Hurry up Gary!
Also if people do use this e-mail, please respect the clubs values and dont send any stupid abuse, it will achieve only to make us look like a bunch of idiots!
What would be nice is some kind of response from the FA that they should have dealt with the cases more consistantly, we deserve that at least.
-
. If i ran a company like the FA is run, i would be hounded out by shareholders, arrested, imprisoned and banned from running any company.
Or you'd own Northwich Vics!
-
Teasy Beaver,
the only problem is that if you publish it on here then NON ALTRINCHAM fans would see it and could jeopardise our opinions \ views with mindless drivel.
if anyone wants the address then PM me, I have no problems with that but don't want to give it out publicly for fear of idiots getting hold of it.