Points deduction

Sideshow Rob · Post by **Sideshow Rob** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:26 pm

&quotA-Ro&quot wrote:An iteresting development

It would be very intersting if the BSP could be forced into a full audit of player registrations, rather than the few they have sampled. It could potentially throw the whole league into chaos and force them into cancelling all the points deductions.

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:50 pm

&quotSideshow Rob&quot wrote:
&quotA-Ro&quot wrote:An iteresting development
It would be very intersting if the BSP could be forced into a full audit of player registrations, rather than the few they have sampled. It could potentially throw the whole league into chaos and force them into cancelling all the points deductions.

I think that sounds to be a very sensible idea, and perhaps the line that OxVox should be following. Given what has come to light, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a fair few clubs then being penalised.

Sideshow Rob · Post by **Sideshow Rob** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:57 pm

If anyone would like to put their view directly to the BSP - here is an easy link.

http&#58//www&#46footballconference&#46 ... k/contact/

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:02 pm

My letter is currently in my head and is still being refined on a day-to-day basis. That’s because there is no point in sending it anywhere until the club decides if an appeal is going to be made or not. If we do go for it then it will go the FA with a copy to the BSP. My hope is that it can be supplemented by facts that are currently still outside of the public domain as only Kelvin can decide to:

a) appeal or not and

b) release to the thousands of clients of the business he runs what has really gone on

Others at Mansfield, Crawley and Bognor may have similar intentions, but for now I’m sitting on my hands. Well, what else can you do?

Sideshow Rob · Post by **Sideshow Rob** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:33 pm

&quotSnake&quot wrote:My letter is currently in my head and is still being refined on a day-to-day basis. That’s because there is no point in sending it anywhere until the club decides if an appeal is going to be made or not. If we do go for it then it will go the FA with a copy to the BSP. My hope is that it can be supplemented by facts that are currently still outside of the public domain as only Kelvin can decide to:

a) appeal or not and

b) release to the thousands of clients of the business he runs what has really gone on

Others at Mansfield, Crawley and Bognor may have similar intentions, but for now I’m sitting on my hands. Well, what else can you do?

My hope is that the four clubs will launch a joint appeal to the FA at which point we can rain down our supporting emails. In the meantime keeping the psychological pressure on the BSP cannot do any harm.

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:48 pm

&quotSideshow Rob&quot wrote:.. at which point we can rain down our supporting emails.

Not until Kelvin decides to let the dogs loose.

It’s an interesting test and decision for him, but it’s what he’s paid to do.

Baboo · Post by **Baboo** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:20 am

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotSideshow Rob&quot wrote:
&quotA-Ro&quot wrote:An iteresting development
It would be very intersting if the BSP could be forced into a full audit of player registrations, rather than the few they have sampled. It could potentially throw the whole league into chaos and force them into cancelling all the points deductions.
I think that sounds to be a very sensible idea, and perhaps the line that OxVox should be following. Given what has come to light, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a fair few clubs then being penalised.

I would be interested to know the sample size checked and of that sample what % was found to be in error.
I would have thought anyone with common sense once errors were found would have checked 100%.

A-Ro · Post by **A-Ro** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:58 am

John Moules' interview.

A-Ro · Post by **A-Ro** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:02 am

A bit more info.

Matt D · Post by **Matt D** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:58 am

Some reaction to the joint trust statement

Myles Francis · Post by **Myles Francis** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:24 am

What concerns me most about all this is that there appears to be considerable weight being given to the argument that Crawley have been harshly treated when compared to the punishment given to us. Without the full written decisions of the Conference being made public, it's impossible to judge what factors were taken into account. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Crawley's punishment was more harsh because of their track record of maladministration.

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:56 am

&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:What concerns me most about all this is that there appears to be considerable weight being given to the argument that Crawley have been harshly treated when compared to the punishment given to us. Without the full written decisions of the Conference being made public, it's impossible to judge what factors were taken into account. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Crawley's punishment was more harsh because of their track record of maladministration.

Their punishment was 4 points, ours was 5, so on that basis, ours was more harsh.

Their player (Isiah Rankine) didn't have any sub appearances for which points were gained, so there was no discretion to be applied and on that basis they've had the same treatment (points deducted for games in which the player started).

Same goes for Mansfield.

Only Bognor have had points deducted for sub appearances, so they would have a good case for appeal.

slappy · Post by **slappy** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:30 pm

Couldn't Nick Merry get good old Mr Loophole on the case?

Myles Francis · Post by **Myles Francis** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:47 pm

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:Their punishment was 4 points, ours was 5, so on that basis, ours was more harsh.

As you well now, you can't judge the harshness of any penalty solely on the level of the penalties taken in isolation

Their player (Isiah Rankine) didn't have any sub appearances for which points were gained, so there was no discretion to be applied and on that basis they've had the same treatment (points deducted for games in which the player started).

Er, you're well wide of the mark here. The only game Rankine started when they gained points was the draw against Stevenage. He came on as a sub in their wins against Torquay and Kettering. The Conference have used their discretion to deduct an additional 3 points. If they'd had the same treatment, they would have been deducted one point.

Mooro · Post by **Mooro** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:05 pm

As Evans says, you do have to have sympathy for Crawley on this one:
Rankin started in one game and lasted until half-time in a drawn game, then came on as a very late sub (five mins max) in two other games.

On reflection, it actually appears that Mansfield may have got off lighter than others, because it seems they had more than one unregistered player which could then be deemed more that one offence.

For me, an individual appeal is unlikely to succeed and may just give the authorities the chance to increase the penalty in the light of other clubs complaints over not following the regulations as they stand.
However, there is definately room for a joint appeal from all four clubs (to the FA and/or the Conference) to have the situation re-assessed in the light of their checking processes not being fit for purpose.
The aim would be to get all instances (known or yet to be uncovered) to be treated in the same fashion, which I would suggest should be a flat 3pt penalty per occurance irrespective of games played/points won/time to come to light.

Rage Online

Points deduction

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: