|
|
Post by markf2 on Jul 9, 2013 19:13:29 GMT
The main reason that Robins ha such a great end to the season was the form of Pinney who has since moved to Tonbridge. They've also lost a few others too during the close season.
This may be just a stay of execution and they go down next season seeing as PD refuses to finance them anymore. As for Thurrock, I have little sympathy. Because of my job I'm not going to go into the reasons why on here. But I'm damn sue they aren't blameless and that is why the FA have retained their stance. Not sure that the Thurock guy moaning in the NLP about 14 day turn around with regards their appeal would have helped matters either; not when the FA pointed out that they had a 21 day response requirement under the rules!
|
|
|
|
Post by fluffy rascal on Jul 10, 2013 12:16:00 GMT
Yeah, it is 1985 - the club is the same age as my kid brother  And mine, and Eastenders  |
|
|
|
Post by Del on Jul 11, 2013 18:38:49 GMT
How can the FA justify that!.The player hasn't signed & never played.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jul 12, 2013 14:40:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jul 29, 2013 10:53:42 GMT
The Thurrock arbitration hearing is taking place today - their last throw of the dice in this affair. A final outcome is expected sometime this afternoon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jul 29, 2013 13:24:09 GMT
The hearing is over, and the result will be announced tomorrow it seems
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jul 30, 2013 12:35:14 GMT
Thurrock have lost the arbitration case, meaning they are relegated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Jul 30, 2013 12:48:10 GMT
Is there dancing in the streets of Carshalton?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jul 30, 2013 13:08:31 GMT
Good news.I look forward to the (Boxing) day when we can go and watch Sutton play there again. We hope that will never happen. That would mean our relegation, because for the time being Carshalton have no chance of getting promoted with their setup and budget, and especially their owner. |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Jul 30, 2013 13:11:28 GMT
Would be nice to have a cup game there.
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Jul 30, 2013 14:52:02 GMT
I don't believe the decision s consistant with the AFCW case a few years back when the overal punishment was deemed as too harsh and the points reduction was reduced. In Thurrock's case a minor error has been punished by relegation?
|
|
tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,496 
|
Post by tonyd on Jul 30, 2013 14:57:14 GMT
I don't believe the decision s consistant with the AFCW case a few years back when the overal punishment was deemed as too harsh and the points reduction was reduced. In Thurrock's case a minor error has been punished by relegation? No it hasn't. It has been punished with a three points deduction. It's not the league's fault that was sufficient to relegate them. Much as I disagreed with letting AFCW off the hook, their offence was not as great - the Thurrock player had been banned sine die, whereas the AFCW case concerned international clearance. |
|
|
|
Post by markf2 on Jul 30, 2013 19:15:10 GMT
Have to say that Thurrock appear to have messed up big time. If they had emailed the FA or their County FA to check the player, they would have been ok as either would have found the guy's ban. I assume that Thurrock didn't as they would have been able to provide such an email thread as evidence had the football authorities not found the player.
A BIG lesson to all clubs to do their homework properly methinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Jul 30, 2013 20:27:20 GMT
I don't believe the decision s consistant with the AFCW case a few years back when the overal punishment was deemed as too harsh and the points reduction was reduced. In Thurrock's case a minor error has been punished by relegation? No it hasn't. It has been punished with a three points deduction. It's not the league's fault that was sufficient to relegate them. Much as I disagreed with letting AFCW off the hook, their offence was not as great - the Thurrock player had been banned sine die, whereas the AFCW case concerned international clearance. I accept that the decision was technically correct as was the original decision the league made regarding AFCW. Although they were slightly different issues the result was that points are lost for the offence which were both mistakes rather then any attempt to be dishonest. What they did with AFCW was to look at the impact of the punishment which would have meant them missing out on a playoff spot completely. After appeal that punishment was deemed to harsh and the points reduction was reduced to allow AFCW to compete. If you see that as the right moral thing to do then surely Thurrock's punishment does not fit the crime. AFCW had the money to take the league to court and Thurrock don't and that is what I think is wrong and why I think the punishment is inconsistent. If the league had of said that the points deduction was for next season I genuinely think most would have thought that a fair conclusion? |
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jul 30, 2013 23:00:44 GMT
I'm not sure really if the punishment didn't fit the crime. We're talking about 3 points. If Thurrock had got another 2 points in the 42 games that season, it wouldn't have mattered. I'm sure it wouldn't have gone that far if it didn't make a difference to their league status. With AFC it was 18 points (which was reduced to 3) and thrown out of all cups (which didn't get reversed). From what I can see for pretty much the same thing. Neither club 'did it on purpose' but then ignorance is no excuse.
The strange thing about this was that the punishment remained unchanged throughout this process, although this could be more to do with the FA and league officials realising that deducting point for every game would just be idiotic.
|
|
