|
|
Post by localboy86 on Dec 28, 2018 11:17:44 GMT
How do you know it is JJ Hooper? They have more than one loan player. I’m just going by a tweet I saw on Bromley’s twitter when this news came out. |
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,324
|
Post by markf on Dec 28, 2018 11:26:47 GMT
No player has been identified officially. Social media etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Dec 28, 2018 11:46:09 GMT
"JJ Hooper. No Charge". Wasn't that a number one in '75?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Dec 28, 2018 11:59:49 GMT
"JJ Hooper. No Charge". Wasn't that a number one in '75? JJ Barrie. 1976. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Dec 28, 2018 13:44:33 GMT
"JJ Hooper. No Charge". Wasn't that a number one in '75? JJ Barrie. 1976. I was aware Mark. Just a little joke on a number of levels that I seem to be in the minority in finding it funny.  |
|
|
|
Post by pinewalker on Dec 29, 2018 19:03:24 GMT
I wonder how this will pan out next week - with the player in question (JJ Hooper) scoring and thus directly influencing the outcome of the match without having FA approval does this mean the punishment will be harsher?! I do not know who the player is As regards the sanction it would not matter what the player did in the game other than misconduct. It is the fact that the club put him on the field that gets the club charged. There remains the possibility that Bromley acted by the book and the FA's record-keeping is at fault. This is what the FA competition rule 16b and c says. As you can see it would be very difficult for a loanee at as senior a club as Bromley to fall into the category of (c) to get off. (b) Subject to (c) below, where a player that is or is found to be ineligible under either the Rules of the Competition and/or the Rules of the Association plays for a club in a Competition match, the Professional Game Board shall remove the club from the Competition, and may impose further penalties against the club. (c) However, where the club satisfies the Professional Game Board that the club (or any of its officers) did not know and could not reasonably have known, even had it made every reasonable enquiry (with the exercise of the utmost caution), that the player was ineligible, the club shall not be removed from the Competition but may still be subject to any other penalty. (e.g. fine, ordered to replay the match). |
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Dec 30, 2018 14:30:41 GMT
There's a piece about this on page 3 of today's NLP. It names Hooper as the player to whom the charge relates.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,324
|
Post by markf on Dec 30, 2018 16:42:42 GMT
But how accurate is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Jan 2, 2019 12:22:35 GMT
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,324
|
Post by markf on Jan 2, 2019 19:36:56 GMT
Not at all it would seem.  |
|
|
|
Post by localboy86 on Jan 3, 2019 14:15:56 GMT
REINSTATED
|
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Jan 3, 2019 14:31:00 GMT
Bromley do have the right of appeal. Their statement implies that they accept the decision, but it would be wise to await their further statement before making any firm travel arrangements!
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477 
|
Post by trev on Jan 3, 2019 14:35:53 GMT
I read localboy's comment as signifying that Bromley have been reinstated, but AA's subsequent comment appears to suggest otherwise. I are confuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by halftimet on Jan 3, 2019 14:38:28 GMT
We are back in
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Jan 3, 2019 14:44:00 GMT
Just checked on my mobile phone and now able to see the link accompanying localboy's original post which for some reason doesn't appear on Google Chrome. Whoop!
|
|
