Rage Online

&quottheox&quot wrote:

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:

&quottheox&quot wrote: Checking its been received and checking its been actioned are two entirely seperate things unfortunately. It depends where the ultimate responsibility for this lies according to rules and whether the FA see these rules as reasonable.

On a slightly seperate point, if we do appeal, who is gonna front the cash for the legal fees? As a lawyer, I know we're not cheap and I have a lot of clients who give up on Litigation on economical grounds even if they have an decent case. I would doubt very much that the rules allow us to recover our costs from the Conference even if we are successful.

This is the type of stuff that gives you guys a bad name, if you know it has been recieved then surely it is reasonable to assume it's been actioned. It seems a moot point that if you know someone has recieved something it is quite reasonble to assume they will have actioned it. We have met our responsibility in ensuring the correct documentation was there in time - if it wasn't processed that is the Conferences fault.

I say appeal if we handed it over in time, and not to if we didn't. It would seem to me that if we personally handed it over it would suggest we were a little late.

But if the rules state that we must ensure that the registration is complete then we haven't met our responsibilty simply by ensuring the form got there in time (if we even did this). Reasonableness doesn't usually come into it when an agreement is made between two businesses. If you sign up to something as a business then you're generally bound by it.

However, this is all just guesswork until we know the actual facts but, as you state, if someone actually personally handed over the paperwork then it does suggest we were late.

Ah but if I was required to pay a invoice by a certain date and I decided to pay a cheque to the company but they sat on their hands and didn't cash it that date, would I be required to ensure the money was taken in time?

Of course not - it is reasonable to suggest that by handing the cheque over I have paid the firm, the fact they didn't action it is up to them.

It is reasonable to say that if we handed in the docs in time to the Conference then we registered the player. Otherwise what are we supposed to do if we do if we check and it's not done - keep calling back until it is?

For a transfer to be valid the docs need to be sent through on time, if they are processed after this time then it doesn't matter its when the club gets the documents to the body responsible.

however, this is all hearsy as I don't know if we did hand them in late or not!

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:

&quottheox&quot wrote:

&quotty cobb&quot wrote: This is the type of stuff that gives you guys a bad name, if you know it has been recieved then surely it is reasonable to assume it's been actioned. It seems a moot point that if you know someone has recieved something it is quite reasonble to assume they will have actioned it. We have met our responsibility in ensuring the correct documentation was there in time - if it wasn't processed that is the Conferences fault.

I say appeal if we handed it over in time, and not to if we didn't. It would seem to me that if we personally handed it over it would suggest we were a little late.

But if the rules state that we must ensure that the registration is complete then we haven't met our responsibilty simply by ensuring the form got there in time (if we even did this). Reasonableness doesn't usually come into it when an agreement is made between two businesses. If you sign up to something as a business then you're generally bound by it.

However, this is all just guesswork until we know the actual facts but, as you state, if someone actually personally handed over the paperwork then it does suggest we were late.

Ah but if I was required to pay a invoice by a certain date and I decided to pay a cheque to the company but they sat on their hands and didn't cash it that date, would I be required to ensure the money was taken in time?

Of course not - it is reasonable to suggest that by handing the cheque over I have paid the firm, the fact they didn't action it is up to them.

It is reasonable to say that if we handed in the docs in time to the Conference then we registered the player. Otherwise what are we supposed to do if we do if we check and it's not done - keep calling back until it is?

For a transfer to be valid the docs need to be sent through on time, if they are processed after this time then it doesn't matter its when the club gets the documents to

I'm afraid youre wrong on the first point. It is your responsibility to make sure bills are paid and, to cut a long explanation very very short, if the company lost your cheque or didn't cash it within the 6 month limit then it would be no defence if they sued you in Court to say 'but i already gave them a cheque'. Obviously, they should bend over backwards to let you pay by instalments or some other form of goodwill but it doesnt excuse you from payment.

As long as the rules state that we only have to get the documents to the Conference then you're right on your second point. However, if the rules state we must ensure players are registered then, yes, we must keep calling back until it is done. You are confusing common sense with the Conference rules. Common sense would say you are right but if the rules are different then common sense can go right out of the window! and on current experience, it certainly seems that no common sense applies to the running of this league!!

Admin is going to be so annoyed with you Mr theox for breaking the forum.

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:It is reasonable to say that if we handed in the docs in time to the Conference then we registered the player. Otherwise what are we supposed to do if we do if we check and it's not done - keep calling back until it is?

Hence why Alty check with the BSP before every game, something might have happened in the system to de-register a player and under the rules the club would be at fault.

Edited and reposted as for some reason was all right justified down the page. Give up - can't get it to work properly.

&quotAny Club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and have levied upon it a fine in accordance with the Fines Tariff. The Company may vary the 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 was intended to be a participant in a match or was listed on the official team sheet did not participate in that match.&quot

It appears the club has now admitted that a form was either submitted late for the first match, or it was submitted on time but not registered until November.

Eddie appeared against
16 Aug 08 Eastbourne - 3 points (came on as sub)
21 Aug Wrexham - 0 points
25 Aug Woking - 1 point (started)
30 Aug Ebbsfleet - 1 point (started)
2 Sep Northwich - 3 points (started)
27 Sep Lewes - 0 points
12 Oct Alty - 0 points
1 Nov York - 3 points (came on as sub)

If this was how the 11 points was calculated, I now think the club was lucky to get away with 5.

The International Transfer Certificate exception was perhaps introduced to get round the AFC Wimbledon circumstance (deduced 18 points for not having an ITC, but reduced to 3 as excessive by the FA).

The substitute exception I can only interpret as being applicable where that player doesn't take to the field, which didn't happen here.

I don't understand where the discretion [edit sp.] to reduce from 11 to 5 came from.

So on an appeal, the FA decide
a) the conference misapplied their own rules and it should have been 11
b) accept their interpretation and call it 5
c) deem it excessive and call it 3
d) call the conference incompetents and write down to NIL.

I now agree the appeal would have be very risky as I think (a) would be most likely.

&quotSnake&quot wrote:Admin is going to be so annoyed with you Mr theox for breaking the forum.

Not as half as annoyed as I am about the missing apostrophe in &quotyoure&quot. Tut.

Interesting statement from the club. The admission of an error clearly undermined the feasibility of any appeal. I guess it will now be fun to sit back and see what happens to Crawley's appeal....and to Steve Evans' blood pressure if anything other than a full or partial reversal of the points deduction be granted.

&quotadmin&quot wrote:

&quotSnake&quot wrote:Admin is going to be so annoyed with you Mr theox for breaking the forum.

Not as half as annoyed as I am about the missing apostrophe in &quotyoure&quot. Tut.

I shall hang my head in shame for the remainder of the day.

&quotDr Bob&quot wrote:The admission of an error clearly undermined the feasibility of any appeal.

I don’t think it undermined it at all - my case had always been that the punishment was too heavy and that it should have been 3 points, but there you go, it’s done now.

Of course, from now until the of the season we’ll all be looking at the league table and adding 2 or 5 points to the value that is published, and if we miss out by 2 or 5 points then we’ll probably be looking at the final table for a few years more and wondering what might have been.

What makes things worse is that yesterday the gap was 1 point, but by tonight it could be 9 (or 12 by Saturday night as we don't play until Sunday) so an awful lot in terms of keeping the season alive rests on us getting at least a draw at Cambridge followed by a combination of high expectation and a banana skin in the form of Lewes.

&quotSnake&quot wrote:

&quotDr Bob&quot wrote:The admission of an error clearly undermined the feasibility of any appeal.

I don’t think it undermined it at all - my case had always been that the punishment was too heavy and that it should have been 3 points, but there you go, it’s done now.

Had I said 'negated' rather than 'undermined' I would more readily understand your ire. Acknowledging we had done something wrong reduced the potential net gain available (ie 2 points, not 5), whilst reference in the club statement to precedents set by other appeals I reckon refers to the possibility, mentioned by several people over the last few days, of the penalty being increased at appeal. You put all these things together and the potential downside remains significant, whilst the potential upside is reduced, tilting the balance towards not appealing.

Whilst I don't disagree that missing out by x points (where x is what might, possibly, perhaps have been restored) would lead to possibly years of what-ifs, that can happen in any year, without points penalties. Missing out by one point having conceded a last minute goal in the first game of the season to the eventual champions, say, could do it. It is just that points deductions give us someone else to blame (as does the decision by the club not to appeal, of course).

But, as you also say, it's done now......(as if to provide further evidence of how much debate this will continue to provoke!)

i'm now wondering if there were games where Eddie was unused sub which I haven't listed. ie these were the discretionary points we weren't docked.

&quotDr Bob&quot wrote:

&quotSnake&quot wrote:

&quotDr Bob&quot wrote:The admission of an error clearly undermined the feasibility of any appeal.

I don’t think it undermined it at all - my case had always been that the punishment was too heavy and that it should have been 3 points, but there you go, it’s done now.

Had I said 'negated' rather than 'undermined' I would more readily understand your ire. Acknowledging we had done something wrong reduced the potential net gain available (ie 2 points, not 5), whilst reference in the club statement to precedents set by other appeals I reckon refers to the possibility, mentioned by several people over the last few days, of the penalty being increased at appeal. You put all these things together and the potential downside remains significant, whilst the potential upside is reduced, tilting the balance towards not appealing.

Whilst I don't disagree that missing out by x points (where x is what might, possibly, perhaps have been restored) would lead to possibly years of what-ifs, that can happen in any year, without points penalties. Missing out by one point having conceded a last minute goal in the first game of the season to the eventual champions, say, could do it. It is just that points deductions give us someone else to blame (as does the decision by the club not to appeal, of course).

But, as you also say, it's done now......(as if to provide further evidence of how much debate this will continue to provoke!)

I know what you mean about the “what if

&quotslappy&quot wrote:i'm now wondering if there were games where Eddie was unused sub which I haven't listed. ie these were the discretionary points we weren't docked.

The discretionry points were the 6 gained when Eddie came on as a sub. One of the reasons for not appealing was that the Conference rules allow no discretion whatsoever for games where a player has started, hence the 5 point penalty.

Crawley's appeal will, alomst certainly, focus on the fact that the Conference have used their discretion for Oxford, but not for Crawley. I think this can easily be defended by the Conference pointing out that Crawley have a recent record of maladministration.

&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:

&quotslappy&quot wrote:i'm now wondering if there were games where Eddie was unused sub which I haven't listed. ie these were the discretionary points we weren't docked.

The discretionry points were the 6 gained when Eddie came on as a sub. One of the reasons for not appealing was that the Conference rules allow no discretion whatsoever for games where a player has started, hence the 5 point penalty.

Crawley's appeal will, alomst certainly, focus on the fact that the Conference have used their discretion for Oxford, but not for Crawley. I think this can easily be defended by the Conference pointing out that Crawley have a recent record of maladministration.

Quite.

If that were not all, Isiah Rankin, was a new player to Crawley, whereas Hutchinson was an existing player at Oxford, which in my view ranks Crawley's offence rather more serious.