COUNTY CUP

[Hammer_rebel]

Just now, epicrebel said:

Just using you,  Every time I went to post it tried to put up the highlights I put up a while ago.

 

Oh ok I was very confused 

[A Rebel and a Saint]

He's trying to say that we shouldn't have been able to play Matt Stevens by stretching a rule that says only players registered at steps 1-6 can play in the competition to say that it means that EFL loan players can't be used. As Matt was registered to play for us at step 2 by nature of his loan contract, he's not really got much of an argument there. 

He's also arguing that other clubs have done it. While it may be the case the county statement says that no complaints had been made by other clubs within the designated timeframes.

 He's not really got a leg to stand on.

[Martin]

Added to the fact we widely publicised that we could not play Dan, Lenchy or Billy it was naive of Marlow not to check their own players.

But not really the right way to make any final is it? 

[SloughFlyer]

What makes me laugh is the fact that Marlow don't seem to be disputing the fact they played a player they shouldn't, it's that most teams have done it so it's ok! Don't see how they can make an appeal as even if they prove that every team in the competition fielded players they shouldn't, it doesn't change the fact that they did.

It is also very convenient that Bartley has tweeted the rules on players being eligible or not, but nothing about the rules regarding time frames to appeal.

It's fairly simple really, Marlow got caught out doing wrong and have been punished for it. Had they or other teams followed the ALL the rules, things may have been different, they didn't, so they aren't.

In addition to the above, given some of the behaviour of some of the Marlow squad and management at the semi final, it couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch?.

It does however go to show that I may have been onto something about the B+B FA and their rules as being tinpot, if they had a more clear, consicise, fair and realistic set of rules, things may have been very different at this stage.

Edited April 11, 2019 by SloughFlyer

[Reading Rebel]

1 hour ago, Martin said:

Added to the fact we widely publicised that we could not play Dan, Lenchy or Billy it was naive of Marlow not to check their own players.

But not really the right way to make any final is it? 

Not really but after the way their players and manager acted on the night isn't it sweet.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Reading Rebel

[Curtis]

It’s a very low level priority competition, with out of date rules inconsistent with other similar County Cup competitions, and extremely poor officials appointed to the matches.

If we pick up a few injuries and a few suspensions we won’t even be able to field a starting eleven.

[Reading Rebel]

11 minutes ago, Curtis said:

It’s a very low level priority competition, with out of date rules inconsistent with other similar County Cup competitions, and extremely poor officials appointed to the matches.

If we pick up a few injuries and a few suspensions we won’t even be able to field a starting eleven.

If that's the case it could be a 5 a side game if all/some of the Reading players are on a contract and ineligible  ?

[Irishadrian]

Its simple really B&B FA won't be proactive A complaint has to be made that's why all the other rule breakers had no action taken against them So Reading and Slough need to agree not to make a complaint and we can both play the teams we want to!

 

[epicrebel]

3 hours ago, A Rebel and a Saint said:

He's trying to say that we shouldn't have been able to play Matt Stevens by stretching a rule that says only players registered at steps 1-6 can play in the competition to say that it means that EFL loan players can't be used. As Matt was registered to play for us at step 2 by nature of his loan contract, he's not really got much of an argument there. 

He's also arguing that other clubs have done it. While it may be the case the county statement says that no complaints had been made by other clubs within the designated timeframes.

 He's not really got a leg to stand on.

Well Dan does that rule   "only players registered at steps 1-6 can play in the competition"  mean Reading , Wyscum or MK Dons can't play in it, If they are then any other club playing any of them would be at a disadvantage, as they couldn't play loan player ie Matt. 

[Scarborough Rebel]

Marlow have just posted this on their official twitter account:

 

Marlow Football Club

 

@MarlowFC

·

8m

 

Have no problem with Slough's appeal that the rules had been unknowingly contravened. Will be interesting when they consider their position re Matthew Steven's and his position as a contract player with a club not in NLS steps1-5 and not under contract to them (B and B rules)

[A Rebel and a Saint]

29 minutes ago, epicrebel said:

Well Dan does that rule   "only players registered at steps 1-6 can play in the competition"  mean Reading , Wyscum or MK Dons can't play in it, If they are then any other club playing any of them would be at a disadvantage, as they couldn't play loan player ie Matt. 

I'm assuming there's another rule allowing some kind of special dispensation to the league clubs. Certainly not worth devaluing the competition by not letting them in. 

[Hammer_rebel]

Dan bench..... your reply to marlow hornet has just won that debate. Although getting into a conversation with someone who starts their debate with “whinging little bitches” is never going to be easy! 

[epicrebel]

5 minutes ago, A Rebel and a Saint said:

I'm assuming there's another rule allowing some kind of special dispensation to the league clubs. Certainly not worth devaluing the competition by not letting them in. 

I agree 

[Reading Rebel]

The rule is players on a contract and playing at a level above 1-6 cannot play in the competition.

As has been said perhaps MK Dons and Reading had special dispensation to play contracted players.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Reading Rebel

[Martin]

Absolutely nailed on that Marlow are putting us out of the FA cup next season. 

[A Rebel and a Saint]

8 hours ago, Hammer_rebel said:

Dan bench..... your reply to marlow hornet has just won that debate. Although getting into a conversation with someone who starts their debate with “whinging little bitches” is never going to be easy! 

Haha thanks HR. Funny that he couldn't see that's actually what Bartley and Marlow are now being... also funny that neither have answered my question about Matt Stevens.... wonder why that is. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by A Rebel and a Saint

[Hammer_rebel]

2 hours ago, A Rebel and a Saint said:

Haha thanks HR. Funny that he couldn't see that's actually what Bartley and Marlow are now being... also funny that neither have answered my question about Matt Stevens.... wonder why that is. 

Unfortunately the Hayes lad is so far up mark Bartley’s bum that he could tell us all what he had for dinner. that’s pathetic. Mark is only telling people his side of the story. Not the whole story. Also people saying we couldn’t beat them.... errrrrr yeah u scored a offside goal that’s the only way you could beat us. 

[SloughFlyer]

Excellent statement on the website from the club about the situation. Puts pay to Bartley / Marlows bitching and moaning and gives a clear position for the club. 

Well done to all involved ?

[Hammer_rebel]

Classy.... response 

[Curtis]

I just have a nagging feeling that we may not have put in an appeal if it hadn’t been for Marlow’s after match shenanigans.

If I’m wrong, I just hope Reading don’t play any ineligible players in the final, because I would hate to see us put in another appeal and claim the trophy by default.