dandannieldanok Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 AFC Wimbledon - Breach of League Rules A personal hearing took place this morning before a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Isthmian Football League Ltd. in respect of a charge for a breach of Rules by AFC Wimbledon Football Club in that they had played Jermaine Darlington for the club in eleven League matches before an International Registration Transfer Certificate was obtained. Having considered the evidence tendered before them and the plea of mitigation put today by the Club, the decision of the Board is that as AFC Wimbledon did not obtain an International Registration Transfer Certificate in respect of Jermiane Darlington, the Club is in breach of League Rule 6.1. It follows that the Club has played an ineligible player under Rule 6.8 in eleven League matches. The Board felt that they must deduct the points gained from those matches and levy a fine in accordance with the Fines Tariff. Accordingly, AFC Wimbledon are deducted 18 points and must pay a fine of £400. An appeal by the Club against this decision lies to The Football Association in accordance with League Rule 17.4.
Head Honcho Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 18 points These point deductions are so random, they have to be using ernie!
JoeyB Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 18 points These point deductions are so random, they have to be using ernie! but if it was a club in the prem they'd loose 3 points max imo
Simi Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 but if it was a club in the prem they'd loose 3 points max imo Not even that probably just a bigger fine and a slap on the wrist, which on appeal would be taken away most likely.
davieG Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 Not even that probably just a bigger fine and a slap on the wrist, which on appeal would be taken away most likely. With an apology for putting them to all that trouble.
Simi Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 With an apology for putting them to all that trouble. Exactly. Perfect example with the whole match fixing thing in Italy. I don't know how it all works but why bother handing out punishments if they are going to be overturned.
Brainy Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 Didn't a Barrow player get 6 months IN JAIL for punching/elbowing a Bristol Rovers player? Lee McCulloch got a 3 match ban for doing the same.. I remember after the match Barrow fans were on teletext expressing their delight that Rovers were beaten by Derby
Head Honcho Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 Didn't a Barrow player get 6 months IN JAIL for punching/elbowing a Bristol Rovers player? Lee McCulloch got a 3 match ban for doing the same.. I remember after the match Barrow fans were on teletext expressing their delight that Rovers were beaten by Derby If he'd done that in a club he'd have got 12 months!
Tevez Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 its a joke to be honest.. if it wasnt for the lower leagues there would be no serious competition
Sods Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 AFC Wimbledon - Breach of League Rules A personal hearing took place this morning before a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Isthmian Football League Ltd. in respect of a charge for a breach of Rules by AFC Wimbledon Football Club in that they had played Jermaine Darlington for the club in eleven League matches before an International Registration Transfer Certificate was obtained. Having considered the evidence tendered before them and the plea of mitigation put today by the Club, the decision of the Board is that as AFC Wimbledon did not obtain an International Registration Transfer Certificate in respect of Jermiane Darlington, the Club is in breach of League Rule 6.1. It follows that the Club has played an ineligible player under Rule 6.8 in eleven League matches. The Board felt that they must deduct the points gained from those matches and levy a fine in accordance with the Fines Tariff. Accordingly, AFC Wimbledon are deducted 18 points and must pay a fine of £400. An appeal by the Club against this decision lies to The Football Association in accordance with League Rule 17.4. They should give AFC wimbledon 18 points, because i would love to see them play Mk dons, and kick the shite out of them
Floating Fox Posted 7 February 2007 Posted 7 February 2007 They should give AFC wimbledon 18 points, because i would love to see them play Mk dons, and kick the shite out of them Wouldn't we all ?
BartonFox Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 Great news and proof that the FA can get things right, first off punting them out the FA Trophy and now this, it might bring the arrogant twats down a peg or two. How they didn't know about international clearance is beyond me. I hope that lot go down in a blaze of shame after what they did, turning their back on their Club after sitting back for years happy to drink from the Premiership nipple. Then they had the cheek to demand all of football feel sorry for them, bunch of simpletons the lot of them. And still they go round acting like they are the way to run a Club and the righteous bollocks they spout makes me sick. I hope MK Dons go up this year for the 250 or so stuck with their Club after being let down by their comrades.
act smiley Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 I think the player in question was signed from Cardiff City and some idiot filling out the form didn't realise that it counted as being FAW despite being in the football league? Considering the slap on the wrist treatment that other sides have got for similar issues, 18 points seems a little bit steep, although obviously they deserve a deduction, I'd have gone for 6-9 myself. Still, the reason for the maximum is clearly to keep a marketable club with a fair amount of fans in the Isthmian league - for all the other small teams history, AFC Wimbledon have a "brand" and would have a fair few away fans. turning their back on their Club Surely the club had already turned its back on them, given that it had already announced it was going to move, if I remember it rightly. "F**k them, lets make a new one" is a perfectly reasonable response to have in that case I'd say. Its hardly like FCUM suddenly deciding that they want to be in non-league due to a different billionaire being in charge of Man Utd, in that Man Utd is still there, Wimbledon isn't.
BartonFox Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 I think the player in question was signed from Cardiff City and some idiot filling out the form didn't realise that it counted as being FAW despite being in the football league? Considering the slap on the wrist treatment that other sides have got for similar issues, 18 points seems a little bit steep, although obviously they deserve a deduction, I'd have gone for 6-9 myself. Still, the reason for the maximum is clearly to keep a marketable club with a fair amount of fans in the Isthmian league - for all the other small teams history, AFC Wimbledon have a "brand" and would have a fair few away fans. They have been deducted 18 points because that is the number of points gained with Jermaine Darlington, the player they did not get clearance for, and it is the correct amount. Surely the club had already turned its back on them, given that it had already announced it was going to move, if I remember it rightly. "F**k them, lets make a new one" is a perfectly reasonable response to have in that case I'd say. Its hardly like FCUM suddenly deciding that they want to be in non-league due to a different billionaire being in charge of Man Utd, in that Man Utd is still there, Wimbledon isn't. The reason the Club was forced to move to Milton Keynes is because, despite the gospel preached by the holier than thou AFC lot, is because no stadium could be built in Merton. Funnily enough since their inception they are no nearer a return to that bourough but have instead bought Kingstonian FC's ground and moved in as numero uno. You have to admire the two faced cheek of them don't you. As I said for years they were happy enough to milk the Premier League cash cow and watch Zola, Cantona and Bergkamp season on season. But rather than work to force a return to the borough they crave, they let time pass until Ron Noades the owner of Selhurst Park started to up the rent to levels the Club could not afford. The Dons got no revenue from anything at Selhurst. The only option was to move, no one in London wanted them and there was no place to go. Perhaps if they'd bothered their arses in the previous years they could have resolved the situation. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for that lot, they are a bunch of arrogant tossers.
Lord Nibblington Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 At first I thought it was quite a harsh punishment. But then I realised, they broke the rules, and benefitted from it. Why shouldn't they lose all the points that they accumalted when they played him?
Head Honcho Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 At first I thought it was quite a harsh punishment. But then I realised, they broke the rules, and benefitted from it. Why shouldn't they lose all the points that they accumalted when they played him? So you're suggesting that they would have lost all 6 games then? The Points deduction is severe and It's bound to be reduced on appeal. The punishments dished out are too random and the whole system needs a shake up.
Lord Nibblington Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 So you're suggesting that they would have lost all 6 games then? The Points deduction is severe and It's bound to be reduced on appeal. The punishments dished out are too random and the whole system needs a shake up. The 18 points cover a period of 11 games. Ultimately, they broke the rules. Does one player mean that their results would have been completely different if he hadn't of played? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know.
Simon Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 Do you think if say, Tevez turns out to have been ineligible, West Ham will lose all the points they gained when he's played for them? Of course they won't. One rule for the elite and one rule for the rest. It stinks.
SystonFox Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 mk dons should never be a pro team anyway. just cos they h ad a bit of money they are eligeble to start where they like. wankers.
BartonFox Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 mk dons should never be a pro team anyway. just cos they h ad a bit of money they are eligeble to start where they like. wankers. My whay an uneducated and ill informed post that is. They won the FA Cup you know more than we have.
Flynny Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 Do you think if say, Tevez turns out to have been ineligible, West Ham will lose all the points they gained when he's played for them? Of course they won't. One rule for the elite and one rule for the rest. It stinks. Just because the rules aren't correctly enforced at a higher level is no reason not to do so at a lower level. They broke the rules and will pay the price.
Simon Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 Just because the rules aren't correctly enforced at a higher level is no reason not to do so at a lower level. They broke the rules and will pay the price. Erm, I'd say 'unequal treatment' is fair grounds for appeal, no?
Manwell Pablo Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 Erm, I'd say 'unequal treatment' is fair grounds for appeal, no? unequal treatment to whome? No Premier league or Championship club has even been found guilty of fielding a inelgible player so there is no case to compare this one to, apart from Altringham in the Confernce, and guess what? they were deducted 18 points.
Head Honcho Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 Do you think if say, Tevez turns out to have been ineligible, West Ham will lose all the points they gained when he's played for them? Of course they won't. One rule for the elite and one rule for the rest. It stinks. That would be a result for West Ham because I doubt they'll have accumulated 18 points this season with Tevez playing
Lineker's Left Foot Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 If Chelski did the same they'd get a fine.. as if that would hurt them. It's ridiculous!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.