Little Rotherham deducted three points...

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




Is it the FA that makes the decisions or the respective league?

The disparity between the decisions could be better understood if it was the latter, but if the former then its ridiculous.
 
HeCanDoMagic said:
Is it the FA that makes the decisions or the respective league?
Click to expand...

" The FA ensures that throughout the season the Laws of the Game are applied on the field and that the rules and regulations concerned with running football in England are observed by officials, club and players off the pitch as well as on it. They also deal with all matters of on and off-field discipline." from the Premier League site.

http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/about/formal-relations.html
 
HeCanDoMagic said:
They've been deducted 3 points for fielding an ineligible player for one game.

Wonder what the punishment would be if a team played an eligible player (or 2) for half a season....
Click to expand...

Or a whole season? Tevez was never properly registered to play, even in the final three games of the season.

HeCanDoMagic said:
Is it the FA that makes the decisions or the respective league?

The disparity between the decisions could be better understood if it was the latter, but if the former then its ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I believe it is up to the competition organiser to set their rules and enforce them by punishing clubs when they are broken. So the Football League in Rotherham's case have dealt with it swiftly and decisively. The FA can be quite inconsistent with how they deal with the FA Cup, but usually take some relevant action. The Premier League are a bunch of conniving, cheating cowards.
 



West Ham were also guilty of lies initially to cover up the matter too.

"Too late in the season, wouldn't be fair on their fans" What's changed? The most unprofessional quote ever from anybody in authority particularly a legal man.

F***ing hell, it still hurts.:mad::mad:
 
Deducting 3pts from Rotherham is the correct decision but that might not help Brighton & HA the team Rotherham beat with a player who should not have been on the field. Unless Millwall could win both games by cricket scores Brighton are safe but if they had 3pts more could finish higher up the table and receive more money for the higher finish. I don't go with this poor old Rotherham bit just because W Ham got away with cheating, a cheat is a cheat and they deserve what they get.
 
davidpinder said:
I don't really care about any other club but us, however this is a fucking joke compared to the West Spam situation. It was one game
Click to expand...

To be fair Dave, this decision isn't the joke one.

They played a player illegally and won three points doing so. Fair enough that those points are returned.
If it hadn't been for the truly corrupt decision previously I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid at it.
 
Strange one this as I'm pretty sure the points deduction is because Rotherham won the match as Blackpool have done the same this season in a match against Millwall that they lost 2-1 and got away with just a £30k fine. Also the lad who was ineligible was on a youth loan so no cap on the length of loan, it just needed the paperwork renewing each month which hadn't been done and had run out the day before so in effect a clerical mistake rather than a West Ham style cover up. Two things for me: Brighton not awarded any points so it doesn't take into account any other team might have lost out (Brighton could mathematically still go down, they wont because of a much superior goal difference but the principle is there, they also may lose out financially because of a lower league position as already stated in an earlier post) The second thing is the player who played might not have had any kind of positive impact on the game, in reality Rotherham could have lost the game because he had a stinker and the football league wouldn't have taken that into account (bit of a tongue in cheek point but it doesn't seem to be accounted for in the reckoning). Would the ruling have been a one point deduction if the match had been drawn, I'm guessing so as Blackpool just got a fine for the same thing as they lost but does anyone know what the ruling is?
 
Chiz said:
this is the issue, its the inconsistency - or one rule for London clubs and one for everywhere else in the country
Click to expand...
I think you've nailed it.

Don't think a PL team would receive a pts deduction as its too "sacred" best league in world blah blah blah.

Look at Chezzy - allowed to re-play MK Dons. Why didn't Bradford get that option?
 
Woodwardfan said:
West Ham were also guilty of lies initially to cover up the matter too.

"Too late in the season, wouldn't be fair on their fans" What's changed? The most unprofessional quote ever from anybody in authority particularly a legal man.

F***ing hell, it still hurts.:mad::mad:
Click to expand...

We should have also drawn with Wigan , but didnt.

UTB
 
Lord Bos of Eckington. said:
We should have also drawn with Wigan , but didnt.

UTB
Click to expand...


In a civilised sport with proper values, without an ex-SWFC Chairman as No.2 in the Prem plus Sir Trevor in there somewhere we would not have been subjected to a Third World type corrupt decision.

As regards the F.A. being involved in the decision, the wording that did us was in the Prem constitution which effectively said any decision by the SWFC clown and the knight of the realm was correct unless it could be proved "to be perverse", how perverse is that, the bastards.

Even the F.A. tribunal chairman said he was hoisted by that wording even though he recognised the case for us.

Thereafter the High Court found in McCabe's favour to the tune of £24m or more, of course they did, but Scudamore is still there isn't he.
 
The premier league make the rules up as they go along that's the difference between them and the football league.

Then the PL hide behind the "well you signed up to this when you joined the league" mantra.
 
Woodwardfan said:
In a civilised sport with proper values, without an ex-SWFC Chairman as No.2 in the Prem plus Sir Trevor in there somewhere we would not have been subjected to a Third World type corrupt decision.

As regards the F.A. being involved in the decision, the wording that did us was in the Prem constitution which effectively said any decision by the SWFC clown and the knight of the realm was correct unless it could be proved "to be perverse", how perverse is that, the bastards.

Even the F.A. tribunal chairman said he was hoisted by that wording even though he recognised the case for us.

Thereafter the High Court found in McCabe's favour to the tune of £24m or more, of course they did, but Scudamore is still there isn't he.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wound up with that Dave Richards bloke .

All of them . Do as i say not as i do.

UTB
 
metalblade said:
Deducting 3pts from Rotherham is the correct decision but that might not help Brighton & HA the team Rotherham beat with a player who should not have been on the field. Unless Millwall could win both games by cricket scores Brighton are safe but if they had 3pts more could finish higher up the table and receive more money for the higher finish. I don't go with this poor old Rotherham bit just because W Ham got away with cheating, a cheat is a cheat and they deserve what they get.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't compare the two on a cheating scale. Rotherham seem to have made a mistake. West Ham lied from the outset to secure two world class players that they otherwise could never have dreamed of having.

That said if you take three points off them there is an argument for redistributing those points to the affected party. That could have enormous repercussions if you extrapolate that over a season when your top scorer is the guilty party!
 
Time to let the West Ham stuff go! They didn't get a points deduction, nothing is going to change that. We're still in League One, moaning about something that happened years ago isn't going to change that.
 
Most of us let it go long ago. But when our near-neighbours get a points deduction for a far less-serious offence it's natural to refer to it. The Tevez episode is possibly the most famous "ineligible player" case in the history of footall. Can't we even referenceTevez in a related discussion without being told to "let it go"?
 



Diamondlife said:
Strange one this as I'm pretty sure the points deduction is because Rotherham won the match as Blackpool have done the same this season in a match against Millwall that they lost 2-1 and got away with just a £30k fine. Also the lad who was ineligible was on a youth loan so no cap on the length of loan, it just needed the paperwork renewing each month which hadn't been done and had run out the day before so in effect a clerical mistake rather than a West Ham style cover up. Two things for me: Brighton not awarded any points so it doesn't take into account any other team might have lost out (Brighton could mathematically still go down, they wont because of a much superior goal difference but the principle is there, they also may lose out financially because of a lower league position as already stated in an earlier post) The second thing is the player who played might not have had any kind of positive impact on the game, in reality Rotherham could have lost the game because he had a stinker and the football league wouldn't have taken that into account (bit of a tongue in cheek point but it doesn't seem to be accounted for in the reckoning). Would the ruling have been a one point deduction if the match had been drawn, I'm guessing so as Blackpool just got a fine for the same thing as they lost but does anyone know what the ruling is?
Click to expand...

Some good points there, but it highlights how the 'laws' can be manipulated and - in the event of an appeal - used against the appellant. On Football Heaven last night, somebody's (referring to the ineligible player) said 'But he didn't score.' It shouldn't matter if the erring team won, drew, got more goals than...etc. etc. The rules should state the offence and the punishment. No ifs or buts.

By not doing this, we've seen plenty of examples recently where 'some' clubs get severely punished and others pretty much get away with it. Failing to complete the correct paperwork for a single game is basic human error.
In no way can West Ham be used as a comparison. They didn't 'fail to register' (TWO) players(s). They embarked on a carefully thought-out ploy to manipulate the rules in their favour over a considerable period of time. Other teams were obviously in on this scheme as they deliberately played weakened teams (Man. U, Liverpool) to help West Ham. As an act of illegality in football it is without equal. Brooking and Richards would do well in positions of power in a banana republic (or politics). Their corruption was indulged because the rest of The Establishment always stick together. With the outrageous decision to gift Spam The White Elephant Olympic Stadium (yet another useless scheme to give self-aggrandisement to The Chosen Few), it proves nothing has changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Westran
Promoted teams and points deductions
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
YES Blade
YES Blade
Shadota
Statistics The subsequent fate of losing play off finalists
Replies
4
Views
700
Shadota
Shadota
Toronto Blade
Relegate
Replies
0
Views
562
Toronto Blade
Toronto Blade
Champagneblade
Missing the boat in a pivotal season
Replies
9
Views
643
JimW1889
J
mattbianco1
Player Suggestion Callum Marshall
Replies
0
Views
477
mattbianco1
mattbianco1

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom