Paddy McCarthy

[zablade]

Is he still suspended or not? Did the cup replay count as his ban? people still seem unsure about this as he wasn't eleigible for the orginal tie and / or if Palace would have allowed him to play anyway?

I hope we don't play him and then find out afterwards we have played an ineligible player, The FA would grind us into the dust with great relish if we did.

 

[Chezzy Blades]

My understanding is that the ban is served because although Palace asked us not to play him, he wasn't illegible in the FA's eyes for actually being 'cup tied'.

 

[BerksBlade]

If he wasn't eligible for the original tie, then he wouldn't have been eligible for the replay either.
I hope the club have checked, double-checked & triple-checked this.

 

[billyblademan]

Maybe the club never made him ineligible, just didn't pick him - hence he was in theory Ok to play in the replay. And of course, as he hasn't played in the cup, he can do so for Warnock in January.

Would have been sensible thinking by United and Palace, and it worked out perfectly if it was the case!

 

[Cyprus Blade]

http://nav.thefa.com/sitecore/conte...ink.aspx?_id=D6CA03B6740C4E78A1E74E2493E9199B

Only SUFC player listed as suspended is Fahad Ishmail.

 

[Pinchy]

Maybe the club never made him ineligible, just didn't pick him - hence he was in theory Ok to play in the replay. And of course, as he hasn't played in the cup, he can do so for Warnock in January.

Would have been sensible thinking by United and Palace, and it worked out perfectly if it was the case!

No club can make a player ineligible. Eligibility is decided by the rules of the particular competition. It can only ever be a 'gentlemanly agreement'

 

[From the pig end]

He's starting isn't he?

 

[billyblademan]

Yup

 

[billyblademan]

No club can make a player ineligible. Eligibility is decided by the rules of the particular competition. It can only ever be a 'gentlemanly agreement'

....


Up the 'aaaaamers.