AFC Wimbledon - 18 points?

[townerboy]

jsut seen this on the Guardians Fiver

 

AFC Wimbledon's rise looked a little less phoenix-like today after they were docked 18 points by the Ryman League for fielding an ineligible player

 

 

Anyoen shed any light on it?

[Arkwright]

Alledgedly they've been using a player who doesn't have international clearance to play, as a punishment they've lost the points & also been thrown out of the FA Trophy. Can't remember the guys name though.

[Mr Happy]

There's a detailed post on the Ryman forum. From what I can read it seems a fair punishment.

[Duke of York]

It was Jermaine Darlington. It seems a bit harsh really as he was signed from Cardiff City who play in England but are affiliated to the welsh FA. The FA should remain consistent and support Ryman in imposing the points reduction. I'm sure Altrincham fans would be well peaved if AFC Wimbledon had got away without a penalty.

[andyetfc]

No doubt they will appeal.

[The Invisible Man]

They don't appeal to me!

[Uncle Urchin]

this puts it into perspective

 

Oh dear!

alan ainsworth ap42ainsworth@yahoo.co.uk, today at 19:24:18

User: guest

Views: 48

 

That is very, very sad. In both senses of the word.

The dummy has well and truly gone out of the pram.

"Waaaahhhhhh! That's not fair! I want! I want! I waaaaannt! Me! Me! Me! Now! Now! Now! Not fair! Waaaahhhh!"

I was honestly stupid enough to believe that Wimbledon might have either been above this or had enough sense not to go down this road.

Who is advising AFCW on this?

A barrister who can charge £600 per hour in a highly specialised field is NOT someone whose opinions should be acted on in an area like this. I sincerely hope AFCW has received some specialist advice, though I find it very hard to believe that this is the case.

I almost picture the scene at the start of the relevant episode in Black Adder One, where the council meeting quickly breaks up with the resolution, "Send for the Witchsmeller Pursuivant!"

 

My legal experience is pretty limited, though not as limited as you might think.

Let's take the grounds for appeal in reverse order:

"The hearing imposed a penalty, award, order or sanction which is excessive."

Au contraire, Madame Cholet, the hearing, it would appear to me, imposed the most lenient sentence the rules allowed.

The rules were agreed at the Isthmian AGM.

They were voted in by member clubs.

Including, I assume, an AFCW delegate.

 

"The hearing came to a decision to which no reasonable such body could have come."

A decision regarding what, exactly? The question of guilt or innocence wasn't up for decision, was it? If you're talking about the decision regarding the sentence, please see the points above.

 

Any reasonable court of law will laugh AFCW out before the case even gets to a hearing on those points.

Please remember that courts of law are, well, courts of law.

They are not courts of common sense.

Nor are they courts of justice in cases where justice and the law conflict.

In courts of law, cases are argued and decided on points of law; nothing else.

There is no such thing as, "The spirit of the law."

There are no Lord Dennings on the bench today.

 

The first point is interesting.

"The hearing misinterpreted or failed to comply with the rules or regulations relevant to its decision."

There could be grounds for optimism here on potential points of technicality. However, something precise is going to have to be cited in any actual appeal. The reference to the "misinterpretations" or "failures to comply" relating to the "decision" is somewhat mysterious.

I'd far rather hear that the misinterpretations or failures to comply related to procedural anomalies or factual inaccuracies during the administrative process leading up to the hearing.

I'd far rather hear that the misinterpretations or failures to comply related to the conduct of the panel / tribunal during the actual hearing.

 

The fact that there was no right of appeal against the sentence in the matter of expulsion from the FA Trophy is a point that will score with any international legal tribunal. International legal bodies take a dim view of the lack of an appeal process in domestic proceedings.

However, it should be emphasised that we should not confuse varieties of, "right of appeal."

The lack of an avenue of appeal against a VERDICT is frowned on under international law. The lack of a right of appeal against a SENTENCE is far less contentious.

 

The FA's answer to the point about the Court of Arbitration for Sport is correct. The Court of Arbitration for Sport indisputably DOES NOT have legal jurisdiction in this case. Whether FIFA or UEFA allow its arbitration to be binding in disputes that would normally be decided by either FIFA or UEFA is a matter for those governing bodies.

 

As for using Liverpool avoidance of the "three-club" rule as an example of "one law for the rich...", FIFA's "articles" clearly contravene the law. FIFA know this. They wouldn't be prepared to be laughed out of court when either Liverpool or Senor Mascherano sued them.

 

This whole process, if followed through to a bitter conclusion - be that in GE Street's palace by the Aldwych, Barry & Pugin's palace by Westminster Bridge, or some equally palatial premises on a foreign field - is going to cost shedloads of dosh. The fact that Wimbledon's barrister is working pro bono isn't going to make a make much of a dent in the final bill. Neither AFCW nor the Isthmian League can afford that bill.

 

The sentence is too harsh......but it's the minimum sentence in the rulebook. A rulebook the Ryman League, AFCW included, democratically voted through, under agreed and valid constitutional procedures.

Yes, the rule should differentiate between - on the one hand - genuine deception, carried out fraudulently, for nefarious purposes and - on the other hand - an adminstrative error. It doesn't.

Nor do an increasing number of laws, in an increasing number of areas. It's a worrying trend and a trend I dislike, but it doesn't normally bother too mant poeople in this country, where it's generally seen as a great idea.

 

Who do you want having jurisdiction over football? Elected club blazers? Or faceless, unelected, self-serving, parasitic bureaucrats in Switzerland, who know nothing about the game and care nothing for it?

As far as I'm concerned, AFCW are John Hurt with the Alien attached to his face. Do we let them - and the Alien - into the ship? Or do we swallow hard?

If the AFCW secretary really did put "None" in the section of the Ryman form that says, "Last club / Other clubs played for this season", he's made a monumental gaffe. It's about time someone took responsibility for that. In modern society, "responsibility" is a dirty word.

 

As I've said on another thread, Wimbledon should try getting support for calling an EGM. They should also use their influence and the amount of goodwill they currently have within the game to:

A) Get some provision for the use of discretion put into the rulebook.

Get the FA to set up some sort of computer database to make surethis crap doesn't happen again.

That would be a responsible course of action.

What they're doing no is irresponsible in the extreme.

I'll be the first to say this and it saddens me to do so, but AFCW are being selfish and deluded here. If they go ahead with this, I hope they get relegated.

[Mr Happy]

This is what I have pasted on the Ryman forum. I am sure some won't like my views but I am entitled to them.:

 

I agree. al Ryan clubs have the same rules to abide by. If they don't then they have to face the concequences of their failure.

 

I also feel that clubs owned by supporter's trusts are in danger of patting themselves on the backs for not having any money men behind them and being run by well-meaning but sometimes less skilled people. Because or past experiences, the word 'business' becomes (to and extent) a swear word that should be shunned for the collective benefit of all. Unfortunately, life is not like that.

 

On a far sadder note. The snowman made by my good self with Little Miss Happy's input and considerable laughter appears to be melting in the rain. RIP Serhat the Snowman!!!

[Duke of York]

It's good to see that you remain consistent Mr. Happy. I remember last season that you didn't have much sympathy for Altrincham. I'm delighted they [AFC Wimbledon] won't be going up. It means there's more chance of us playing them next season. Having said that, on current form, I reckon there's more chance of Serhat the Snowman surviving the weekend.

[Mr Happy]

I just feel that all clubs should abide by the rules set out at the start of the seasonand, if found guilty of contravening those rules, should accept the punishment given that, again, was set out at the start of te season. I now notice taht their local MP is using her political power and speakign with the sports minister to get him to intervene. What a joke!

[MbrunoB]

If they bring in a provision for "discretion" in the rulebook then you might as well not have the rulebook as that will just grey ALL the rules and allow clubs to get around any rules as and when it suits them. Rules must be black and white!

 

Common sense can never be introduced to a rulebook for the same reeason.

[Football Man]

Having dealt with the administration at AFC Wimbledon when throwing them out of the Cherry Red Books Trophy a few years ago, their current situation doesn't surprise me. Every now and then, they get reminded that they cannot walk all over everybody and everything just because they have a few more supporters than anyone else. Let's see if they learn this time.