|
|
Post by halftimet on Jan 2, 2019 11:53:32 GMT
Not sure I would like to play Bromley again and a trip to Spennymoor does not thrill me.
|
|
jr
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by jr on Jan 2, 2019 13:17:46 GMT
Two posts from the Bromley forum: The paperwork for Junior's loan from Colchester didn't specify that he could play in the FA Trophy. Colchester have clarified the situation, in that he could play, in a back dated letter to the FA as part of this hearing. Whether this will be enough, remains to be seen.
***
It maybe enough to persuade the FA to order us to replay the match. Hopefully we won't have to play Sutton again.. I wouldn’t believe that Colchester have back dated a letter. Don’t think the FA would look favourably at all on that. They may have written a letter in support though |
|
|
|
F A Trophy
Jan 2, 2019 13:21:16 GMT
via mobile
jr likes this
Post by Andy K on Jan 2, 2019 13:21:16 GMT
Two posts from the Bromley forum: The paperwork for Junior's loan from Colchester didn't specify that he could play in the FA Trophy. Colchester have clarified the situation, in that he could play, in a back dated letter to the FA as part of this hearing. Whether this will be enough, remains to be seen.
***
It maybe enough to persuade the FA to order us to replay the match. Hopefully we won't have to play Sutton again.. I wouldn’t believe that Colchester have back dated a letter. Don’t think the FA would look favourably at all on that. They may have written a letter in support though That's the thing - lots of gossip and rumours about which I'd guess the majority of which are unfounded. Certainly on that club's forum. Of course it could be possible that Bromley fail in their hearing and stay in the competition and get just a fine. The whole spectrum of outcomes is still available and no one here (and quite possibly even those on the Sutton board) know the full extent of the hearing. |
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477 
|
Post by trev on Jan 2, 2019 13:31:49 GMT
An interesting development, for sure.
On my understanding of the FA's rules, a player on a domestic temporary loan transfer is ineligible to compete in a cup competition unless permission to do so is given by the lending Club in writing and a copy is received by the FA by
the applicable registration deadline for that round.
Any permission must clearly state that the player has approval to play in the competition.
On the basis of the information provided in the public domain, which of course may not be accurate, it appears that the applicable paperwork did not expressly state the player in question could play in the FA Trophy.
Notwithstanding that the parent club may now have retrospectively provided such approval, on the information presented that approval was not made available to the FA by the applicable registration deadline.
If what has been said is correct, then on a strict interpretation of the rules, the appeal is bound to fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jan 2, 2019 13:34:06 GMT
An interesting development, for sure. On my understanding of the FA's rules, a player on a domestic temporary loan transfer is ineligible to compete in a cup competition unless permission to do so is given by the lending Club in writing and a copy is received by the FA by the applicable registration deadline for that round. Any permission must clearly state that the player has approval to play in the competition. On the basis of the information provided in the public domain, which of course may not be accurate, it appears that the applicable paperwork did not expressly state the player in question could play in the FA Trophy. Notwithstanding that the parent club may now have retrospectively provided such approval, on the information presented that approval was not made available to the FA by the applicable registration deadline. If what has been said is correct, then on a strict interpretation of the rules, the appeal is bound to fail. I think that's the point I've been making over the last few days. We have no idea what is correct or what is not or even the specific circumstances. We're not even totally sure which player it is. All this guesswork could lead to false hope and that's not fair on anyone on either side. We need to just ride it out until tomorrow evening. |
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Jan 2, 2019 13:38:13 GMT
Agreed. Too many ifs and buts to accurately predict the outcome... but if the information provided on the Bromley forum is correct, then retrospective paperwork is unlikely to result in a successful outcome for the Raven faithful.
|
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Jan 2, 2019 17:46:55 GMT
I thought that the hearing was on 31st January, It was previously announced that it was happening the week commencing 31 December. Maybe you just confused the month? |
|
pg
Newbie
Posts: 67
|
Post by pg on Jan 2, 2019 17:59:26 GMT
I read on their forum that the hearing is tomorrow... Shame I’m working or I’d go and hang around outside Wembley for the outcome 🤓
|
|
|
|
Post by shrewsbury posse on Jan 2, 2019 18:11:41 GMT
I read on their forum that the hearing is tomorrow... Shame I’m working or I’d go and hang around outside Wembley for the outcome 🤓 Is it too late for John to organise a coach? |
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,324
|
Post by markf on Jan 2, 2019 19:33:58 GMT
This implies that the player in question isn't the one many thought it was before. We're still not any closer to a resolution though I did say they had more than one loan player. NLP has egg on its face too. |
|
|
|
Post by davethegrave on Jan 2, 2019 20:43:53 GMT
I thought that the hearing was on 31st January, Not sure where you heard that, but it's extremely unlikely, since the 2nd Round is due to be played on the 12th January, and after that, the 3rd Round Ties are to be played on the weekend of the 2nd February, the FA wouldn't normally allow a backlog of fixtures ( the only exemptions seem to be when games are "postponed" due to bad weather ) OK. Getting ahead of myself. I meant 31st December. |
|
|
|
Post by localboy86 on Jan 3, 2019 14:16:50 GMT
REINSTATED
|
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Jan 3, 2019 20:55:10 GMT
I read on their forum that the hearing is tomorrow... Shame I’m working or I’d go and hang around outside Wembley for the outcome 🤓 Is it too late for John to organise a coach? I’m sure John will be taking names for the trip on Saturday. |
|
|
|
Post by pinewalker on Jan 3, 2019 21:24:38 GMT
Trev FYI. The rule (15j i) about loan players in the FA Trophy requires the borrowing club to do 2 things. First, get a written authority from the lending club stating the player can play in the FA Trophy, second supply a copy of that written authority to the FA (as Competition organisers). The second part Bromley could not have done - because the original loan letter from Colchester omitted to mention the FA Trophy.
|
|
pg
Newbie
Posts: 67
|
Post by pg on Jan 3, 2019 21:38:35 GMT
Bromley mentioned in their statement that the FA were alerted to the issue by the Sutton secretary. Just out of interest, how would we know if a player is correctly registered with the FA? Is there a database or something, or do we literally raise it with the FA if there are loan players involved and hope for the best?
Sorry if it's a silly question but I am a bit confused how we would know this player wasn't allowed to play in just the Trophy.
|
|
