|
Post by ratty on Nov 19, 2007 9:41:32 GMT
News has reached me in the Wimbledon enclave here in PDR Laos that Boston United those serial rule breakers, have been let off with a warning for failing to obtain an international clearance (ho ho) that affected 3 games (and seven pts).
Now I wonder where some of your more critical supporters like Hon Sec, Ed and Andy K stand on this as some made it chear that AFCWimbledon only had our penalty reduced due to our size and lobbying capability. Much sneering on an earlier thread about Tony Blair speaking on behalf. Maybe time to reflect that we didn't get favourable treatment. Oh and if anyone wants to bring up Alty re,member this - their 18pt deduction penalty was NOT CONTESTED as it had zero impact on them going down or staying up!
|
|
Gareth
1st team Player
Goon
Posts: 1,646
|
Post by Gareth on Nov 19, 2007 9:55:07 GMT
Well the FA hasn't got much choice now, have they?
|
|
DaveF
1st team Player
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by DaveF on Nov 19, 2007 10:58:53 GMT
Exactly why the FA were wrong before.
Sorry, but full-time people shouldn't make these mistakes. If the rule doesn't matter then change the rule, but as long as it's considered important then the punishment needs to reflect it.
|
|
Rax
1st team Player
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Rax on Nov 19, 2007 11:09:22 GMT
The FA really shot themselves in the foot the first time around. Does this now mean that clubs can sign a load of overseas guys and play 'em without clearance, knowing it wont matter a jot?
|
|
|
Post by os on Nov 19, 2007 12:15:17 GMT
One would assume now that AFC's ground breaking move has set a precedence which Boston merely followed. Maybe Hon Sec can advise but sure this means clubs no longer need international clearance for players? Its funny you know how things have a habit of coming back to haunt you, I wonder what AFC would say if a player without int clearance played against them and stopped their promotion??
|
|
DaveF
1st team Player
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by DaveF on Nov 19, 2007 12:33:46 GMT
I wouldn't risk it
|
|
taz
Top Performer
Posts: 3,760
|
Post by taz on Nov 19, 2007 13:35:31 GMT
TBH Ratty, the size of the stink AFC kicked up and that subsequently got the penalty reduced effectively set a precedent. Simple as that.
Why should Boston get treated any differently to you? Any club now getting done by the FA for ineligible players, especially non-league ones involving international clearance, simply roll up to the hearing and go "Well, you let off AFC Wimbledon with virtually bugger all for the same offence....."
Anyway, I seem to remember the crusade being pretty much billed as for the good of football as a whole. Aren't you happy that another club has escaped from this 'evil' and 'unfair' rule thanks to your campaign?
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Nov 19, 2007 17:37:59 GMT
Oh dear Ratty. Another bitter man...
If Boston have broken the rules they should have to accept the punishment for that. The same way as AFC should have and the same way that any other team should have. Otherwise whats the point in having the rules in place in the first place.
Personally I don't give a monkey's scrotum about reflecting on if AFC were treated unfairly, its insignificant to me and many others. My position is that everyone should be treated by the same rules, including Sutton if we broke them. All I say is getting the primeminister involved, who was hardly flavour of the month at the time just made you all look a little bit foolish and gave the impression you all have ideas way out of your league (no pun intended).
|
|
Millsy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,246
|
Post by Millsy on Nov 19, 2007 17:45:48 GMT
Anyway, I seem to remember the crusade being pretty much billed as for the good of football as a whole. Aren't you happy that another club has escaped from this 'evil' and 'unfair' rule thanks to your campaign? Spot on Tazbert, Ratty's only chance at salvation is to play the 'I'm winding you up and you bit' card....
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,294
|
Post by markf on Nov 19, 2007 18:04:32 GMT
Hopefully he'll bugger off for good now. As stated earlier, the word precedent is key here and it would appear that has gone right over Ratty's head.
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Nov 20, 2007 14:08:48 GMT
Not exactly "over my head". I was referring to an earlier thread when the news of Boston's "infringement" of the rule was initially discussed and I seem to recall that most posters were implying that Boston Utd would not fair as well as Wimbledon did. That seems to have been turned on its head although all of you now are very keen to play this "precedent card", hmmm. My point is not the "winding 'em up" card, it's the stance taken by certain posters on here & I wonder what agendas they have. Certainly that was my view earlier in the year when our problems first surfaced and even clubs like Bromley & Tooting gave us some leeway.
The 18pt deduction was a total joke - only Sutton Utd didn't spot this one. If we've done some good in highlighting this, then okay I'm happy that Boston Utd didn't have to suffer a similar fate. If the issue is that we utilised our support base to (partly) turnaround the decision, then what on earth do you expect us to do?
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Nov 20, 2007 14:26:32 GMT
Ah its the 'certain posters' line again. Basically Ratty, if you don't like what you read on here, don't bother.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,294
|
Post by markf on Nov 20, 2007 18:39:12 GMT
Ahh but Ratty in your post that started this thread you referred to "not getting favourable treatment". You became the test case, so every new decision on a similar point of rule breaking is now based on that decision, hence the word precedent.
That's why you have received the responses you have. Simple really.
|
|