FA website

[retarded turtle]

http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/N...ge_StAlbans.htm

 

Have a look at the above link!

 

It all looks pretty ominous to me, by my reckoning that is now THREE cup competitions that we've been booted out of due to 'administration errors' no doubt it will just be forgotten again, just like in previous instances. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/flame.gif" alt="" />

[Rob_the_Saint]

Difficult to comment without knowing all the facts, but Heybridge must be pretty sure of themselves to lodge a protest. I wonder where they got their information from?

[AFF]

I imagine that Heybridge checked the teamsheet which was taken from the manager to the referee one hour before kick-off, Rob. The task is not limited to delivering the thing, you know. The courier has to add the player registration numbers.

 

Perhaps Heybridge read this message board on Friday afternoon, Rob. Some eejit mentioned that t'lad was to play the following day [if fit].

 

I assume that it is common knowledge that Jamie Southon is here on loan and I picture that Heybridge made a phone call to Soho Square to check that 'procedures' had been followed. It would seem that they have a point as they have lodged a protest although we should wait for the outcome of the Protest Sub-Committee meeting before making alternative arrangements for Saturday week.

[Rob_the_Saint]

Quote:

Perhaps Heybridge read this message board on Friday afternoon, Rob. Some eejit mentioned that t'lad was to play the following day [if fit].

...that's because some 'eejit' told me he (Southon) had been given permission by Hx to play!

[Zagreus]

from bad to worse <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[AFF]

Surely, the only issue is "Were proper procedures followed?"

 

If "Yes", we have nothing to worry about.

 

If "No", we take whatever is the punishment on the chin, review our own procedures to ensure no repetition, and move on.

 

3 points on Friday night would be very welcome.

[Uncle Urchin]

some ejjit told me that we were going to sign ronaldo once but I checked it out first..

 

the onus of responsibility for ensuring a player is eligible to play is with the club that wants to play the player.

 

as for wondering who told Heybridge Swifts that he wasn't eligible...what difference does that make Rob...surely you wouldn't condone hiding such a matter from the FA would you.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

 

In any event, we automatically check the registrations from the team sheets after every game...(you may recall we were deducted a point for a similar offence last year) surely most clubs do.

[YELLOW]

And funnily enough that was against Heybridge!!!

[JKiF]

as someone once said .."there used to be a football club over there"

[Laz]

Quote:

If "No", we take whatever is the punishment on the chin, review our own procedures to ensure no repetition, and move on.

That is standard practice, surely? Something fouls up, you work out why and stop it repeating!

Well, this has happened twice before in recent years so why is it continuing?

All I can add is thank heavens no flares were set off in the ground otherwise we'd be in total poo!

[Uncle Urchin]

as an aside to the clubs position in all of this. It seems that the player...Jamie Southon... is now deemed as 'cup tied' and can't play again in the competition should SA be disqualified.

 

All seems a bit draconian...

 

but rules is rules...

[AFF]

Greetings Uncle Urchin.

 

Don't go there. Don't ask yourself the different values that Roman Abramovich and his team would put on a player depending upon his availability to play in the F.A. Cup. This is Jamie Southon. Nice chap and a fine footballer but we aren't talking Wayne Rooney here, Uncle. This is not £28 mill if he can play, £15 mill if he can't.

 

Litigation should be the last resort, in any event! Look at Sophocleous vs. Reed. The only winners were Great Ormond Street Hospital and the Lawyers, of course.

[Uncle Urchin]

as if it ever crossed my mind AFFY....god forbid.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/whistling.gif" alt="" />

 

it does raise the question of course as to what litigation will follow from young Southen when his Hx team mates run out at the Millenium Stadium next May to the Hx bands rendition of 'The Great Escape' ... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/icon_band222.gif" alt="" />

 

and of course he's sitting in the pub watching on telly... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

 

I do however concure with your 'non litigateous' principals and will satisfy myself with action against the Labour Government for false pretences instead.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[YB941 5thD EFM ~soul~]

Presumably we won't hear a decision by the time that Gib$on writes his programme notes for the Purfleet game?

 

I'll be interested to read his comments in the local press, though.

 

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Laz]

I always enjoy reading his notes not just for his interesting use of English but for the rantings. I can't wait to see how he's going to blame EFM behaviour at away games and the adverse reporting in the press for this one.

[Uncle Urchin]

greetings Laz......long time no speak...... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

 

this one gets better by the day...although the Hx legal team prevent me from disclosing certain issues..... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

 

needless to say....the FA compliance unit are now involved in what really should have been a simple enough issue....

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

we shall of course leave the conclusions with regard to this matter to others more informed than us mere fans......

 

needless to say...it would appear....if we understand the 'new age' journelistic version in the herts observor/times/recorder/globe...that it is all a dastardly plot by Hx/Gary Calder to bring jamie southon back to Hx......

 

this of course may well go down well with the 'hoi poloi' anti urchin brigade...but does of course raise one simple idiot proof question.....

 

if we wanted jamie back....why not call him back from the loan spell...

 

more even...

 

why let him out on loan in the first place....

 

such simple questions over a simple issue....

 

we would not of course assume that SA or its executives or management were at all culpable in this matter....

 

why goodness me...the manager was away on holiday....he couldn't be at all responsible now could he.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/achso.gif" alt="" />

 

ho hum.....

 

as everyone knows....

 

Hx are to blame for everythng.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

[AFF]

Old friends are always welcome on here, Uncle. Greetings from me. Fond memories of the hospitality at your place last season, reciprocated at ours, not to mention 4 points from 6, of course. I look forward to a repeat showing this term, if not 6 from 6.

 

I don't know anything about football and I am very distant from the heart of the action but I have to confess that I don't see where the Urchins feature in this tale.

 

We played Heybridge, they checked the team-sheet thingy and spotted Jamie Southon at right-back. Knowing that he is a loan player, they checked with the F.A. and, the Swifts appear to believe, a small administrative error may have been made. In goes the protest. Nothing personal, of course and no offence taken. Not by me, anyway. It's their £100 protest fee.

 

Surely the issue is that the Mighty Saints either have written permission from Hornchurch to play t'lad in a form acceptable to the F.A. or we don't. No doubt our chap who used to drive the red tractor has responded to Soho Square in whatever fashion is required and the matter will be determined by t'Committee today or tomorrow. Then we move on.

 

As for the local press: don't go there Uncle. Others may fill you in on that one.

[YB941 5thD EFM ~soul~]

No Observer in the local shop on my way in.

 

I wonder if Gib$on has recalled all the copies!? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

[AFF]

Hi YB941 5thD EFM ~soul~.

 

While queuing for a copy of the F.A. Yearbook in the newsagents this morning, I decided to buy a copy of the St. Albans Observer, and the back page reads as follows:

 

ST ALBANS CITY'S FA Cup future will be decided at Soho Square this morning (Thursday) when an FA Cup Protest Sub-Committee will decide what action to take following claims that the Clarence Park side fielded an ineligible player during Saturday's 2-0 win at Heybridge Swifts in an FA Cup Second Qualifying Round tie.

Following the match, Swifts lodged an appeal claiming that on-loan City midfielder Jamie Southon played without the written permission of Hornchurch, the club he is contracted to.

City will refute the accusation, claiming that when Southon was signed on a three-month loan deal in August, the player's right to appear in cup competitions for City was discussed and registered with the FA, and the only stipulation of the deal was that Southon could not play against Hornchurch.

However, the situation is made more complex by FA regulations, which state that a player on loan who wishes to take part in the FA Cup must have specific written permission from the club he is on loan from, in this case Hornchurch.

What is now crucial is how the FA treat the initial loan agreement made in August, and whether or not they accept it as evidence of written permission allowing Southon to play in the FA Cup.

City chairman John Gibson is furious at the turn of events: "I find the whole episode outrageous," he said.

"We discussed all this with Hornchurch when we signed the initial loan agreement, and the only stipulation was that Jamie would not play against Hornchurch. We have a copy, Hornchurch have a copy and the FA have a copy.

"We gave the Hornchurch manager Garry Hill a call on Friday to re-emphasise the terms of the agreement and he confirmed it, so there's no problem as far as I'm concerned.

"Nowhere in the FA rules does it say they have to be notified twice about an on-loan player playing in the Cup; they've had it in writing for three months now.

"Under normal circumstances I'd be confident of winning, but with the FA I'm not so sure," the chairman added.

Hornchurch chairman Gary Calder confirmed the loan agreement was registered three months ago, but believes that City did not get written permission specifically for the FA Cup tie: "We're the innocent party in all of this."

Heybridge Swifts meanwhile were reluctant to comment until after the hearing, although a club spokesman did say: "We checked the player's sheet as every club does, thought there was an error and notified the FA."

St Albans City have twice before been thrown out of competitions because of an administrative error in recent years. In 1999 Ian Rutherford was ineligible for a League Cup tie while in 2000 Greg Deacon played in a Herts Senior Cup tie but was not registered. However, the fact that City have suffered twice for administrative errors in the last five years would suggest that they would be unlikely to repeat the same mistake again.

Southon has also missed the majority of the season because of injury, and boss Steve Castle had plenty of options in midfield had he not been 100 per cent sure of Southon's eligibility.

Either way, the outcome of today's appeal cannot be underestimated in its importance. Should City be vindicated they will receive £3,750 for winning their Second Qualifying Round tie and a home draw against Yeading in Qualifying Round Three.

If City were to get past Ryman side Yeading, they would then only be one win away from the First Round proper, where they could face a Coca-Cola League One or Two side.

Understandably, boss Steve Castle is anxious: "We haven't done anything wrong. We'd registered the player and I've spoken to Garry Hill many times this season about a number of players and out of courtesy called him on Friday and it was confirmed; that's the long and short of it."

Should the hearing go City's way though, Castle suggested the draw is a favourable one:

"Yeading are a very good side but being at home is all important. It's tough, but we can progress, depending on the hearing of course."

Saints goalkeeper Mel Capleton is facing a stint on the sidelines because of a recurring thigh injury and will almost certainly miss tomorrow's Conference South clash with Thurrock.

 

Always pleased to assist.

[Rob_the_Saint]

I reiterate.... FA Cup rule 18(j)(i) states:

 

Temporary (loan) Transfers

 

A player on temporary (loan) transfer is ineligible to compete unless permission is given by the lending Club in writing and a copy is received by The Association by 12 noon on the Friday prior to the date fixed for playing the Round.

 

...nothing in there about specific permission for the FA Cup. We shall wait and see.