|
FA Charge
Apr 6, 2016 12:33:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by skillspaybills on Apr 6, 2016 12:33:01 GMT
www.suttonunited.net/news.php#3411The charge concerns the appearance of Jamie Slabber as a substitute, with the allegation that the relevant forms concerning his loan from Hemel Hempstead had not been lodged with all the relevant authorities prior to the game and he was therefore ineligible to play. More on the club website. Oh dear.
|
|
|
Post by garethl on Apr 6, 2016 12:40:49 GMT
Fingers crossed on this. Without knowing any facts hard to say what will happen. However given we were 3-0 up a points deduction would appear very harsh. Rules are rules though.
|
|
|
Post by johnnie1 on Apr 6, 2016 12:49:52 GMT
Given that Concord actually didn't have the correct forms and still got to replay their game against us I'd be really wound up (to put it politely) if we did have points deducted
|
|
|
FA Charge
Apr 6, 2016 12:50:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by sallycat on Apr 6, 2016 12:50:13 GMT
Well according to the club, we haven't broken any. I wonder where the allegation has come from in that case.
|
|
|
FA Charge
Apr 6, 2016 12:52:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by sallycat on Apr 6, 2016 12:52:04 GMT
Given that Concord actually didn't have the correct forms and still got to replay their game against us I'd be really wound up (to put it politely) if we did have points deducted Problem is, you can't deduct points from a cup match. They'd probably say it was equivalent - if you draw a league game you drop points, draw a cup game and you have to replay it. This would be the worst possible Conf South season ever for us to get a points deduction! I don't think it's ever happened to us before has it?
|
|
|
Post by Suttontilidie on Apr 6, 2016 13:05:54 GMT
Lost count of how many times I've read about this happening and thought 'that will never happen at a club that's as well run as ours', the fact that we haven't admitted to it and the other details mentioned makes me think that it's entirely possible that the allegations are false, but they have to have come from somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by timbo on Apr 6, 2016 13:47:30 GMT
"the allegation that the relevant forms concerning his loan from Hemel Hempstead had not been lodged with all the relevant authorities prior to the game and he was therefore ineligible to play, although the paperwork had been submitted to the league on time and the league had approved the loan"
If the forms had been lodged with the league (presumably means Surrey FA?) and the league had approved the loan, who are the other "relevant authorities"?
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Apr 6, 2016 13:50:28 GMT
Without knowing the exact circumstances it's difficult to decide on fault or apply precedent. What both the club and the league won't want is this dragging on so that the situation is unresolved as we get close to the play-offs.
|
|
Millsy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,246
|
Post by Millsy on Apr 6, 2016 13:53:20 GMT
There's precedent from other leagues and The FA, together with guidance from The FA themselves to leagues that the maximum sanction in terms of points deductions need not and should not be applied in the majority of cases, outcome aside, it's all still in our hands. Dos and the squad are galvanised in the face of adversity as demonstrated last night and I have no doubt that the Club as a whole will and are even more determined to complete the job in hand.
We're all in together, never more so than now. Forza United!
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,195
|
Post by markf on Apr 6, 2016 17:38:26 GMT
"the allegation that the relevant forms concerning his loan from Hemel Hempstead had not been lodged with all the relevant authorities prior to the game and he was therefore ineligible to play, although the paperwork had been submitted to the league on time and the league had approved the loan" If the forms had been lodged with the league (presumably means Surrey FA?) and the league had approved the loan, who are the other "relevant authorities"? Sutton United's first team is governed by The FA not the Surrey FA, so that presumption is incorrect.
|
|
|
FA Charge
Apr 6, 2016 17:39:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by sallycat on Apr 6, 2016 17:39:31 GMT
Then perhaps the FA - as opposed to the league - are the other relevant authorities.
|
|
|
Post by os on Apr 6, 2016 17:54:45 GMT
Our club is one of the best run in non league, it is noted for its efficiency and proper conduct. We bring in players on loan and send out players on loan all the time.
If we have been caught out on a technicality then I think that says more about the rules themselves then anything else? The FA do have the option to waive any sanction if they believe the error was a simple administrative mistake or misunderstanding.
I just cannot understand why so many clubs seem to be charged with this offence, it seems clear that no intention to deceive is ever meant. Why on earth can't clubs get a simple - Free to play message - end of?
|
|
|
FA Charge
Apr 6, 2016 17:57:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by skillspaybills on Apr 6, 2016 17:57:52 GMT
£££.
|
|
jr
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by jr on Apr 6, 2016 18:13:28 GMT
The Gravesend fans are having a field day and judged us as guilty already even though we're contesting the charge and they have copied the club's statement onto their forum. They just seem to ignore what we're saying. No change there then!
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,195
|
Post by markf on Apr 6, 2016 18:15:56 GMT
Red tape. Any one who has worked / works as a civil servant will be aware of the bureaucracy that exists in procedure and process and football is no different in this regard and never has been. I suspect it is to safe guard the sport from those who would attempt to deliberately deceive especially at lower levels of the game where it is more prevalent because of a lack of resources available to clubs. Most of the time though, it is out of ignorance of the rules because club volunteers at grass roots don't have the time to consult.
|
|