AFC Wimbledon moaning........

[Ryan.c]

........can't stand it know more, for god's sake, get over it.

 

I thank you!

[GazzaBTFC]

Whereas I had some sympathy for them, I think that someone should point out that, as a Ryman League side, they sign up to the rules, which they broke and when found that they broke 'em, the rules were applied.

 

As far as I can see, nowt unfair there.

 

I wonder what their reaction would've been if Bromley or Margate (or for that matter Hampton) had broke the rules?

 

As you say Ryan, get over it.

[Rick the Dick]

From Fridays Saarf London Press:-

 

Quote:

Dons have top man for FA court clash

 

AFC Wimbledon will have one of the UK's top defence lawyers in their corner when they take on the FA - for free!

 

Jim Sturman QC will act for the Dons in their appeal against the FA's decision to boot them out of the FA Trophy and the Ryman League's verdict of docking them 18 points.

 

The South Londoners were charged for fielding ineligible player Jermaine Darlington when he didn't have international clearance from the Welsh FA after moving from Cardiff in November.

 

The club believes the punishment over a clerical error,which included handing back £12,000 prize money,is too severe.

 

Sturman, along with high-profile solicitor Peter Cadman of Russell Cooke, are representing Wimbledon for free,because they feel there is a genuine injustice over an innocent mistake.

 

Spurs fan Sturman, 48, is best known for defending Colin Stagg, who was acquitted in 1994 of murdering Rachel Nickel.

 

He acted for Chelsea in their appeal against John Terry's FA charge for improper conduct when the England skipper criticised referee Graham Poll in November. Jose Mourinho called on Sturman's services in the Ashley Cole "tapping up" case.

 

And the sports law specialist has also worked for Tottenham, Millwall, the FA and many top Premiership clubs and footballers such as Jimmy-Floyd Hasselbaink, Celestine Babayaro, Joe Cole,Duncan Ferguson and Jens Lehmann.

 

Recent figures revealed Sturman was the UK's highest-paid lawyer last year.

 

 

So the final table, in what's shaping up to be a terrifically competitive competition, could turn out to be settled in the courts. That's in the spirit of the game innit

[GazzaBTFC]

Quote:

The club believes the punishment over a clerical error,which included handing back £12,000 prize money,is too severe.

 

It's in the rules, so it isn't severe.

 

As this guy is the highest paid lawyer in the UK for what he does, legal costs are going to hurt someone!!!

 

Nice to see that the Wombles are bringing Non League football up to speed with the "professional" game. Must thank 'em for that.

[Localfan]

The problem is here, as you say, the legal costs are going to hurt someone. Well if the ryman league fail and costs are incurred.....guess who will have to pay the leagues costs..us the members (clubs).

 

I have every sympathy with the fans, but the club has cocked up..as you say they will have to get over it.

[GazzaBTFC]

Perhaps they should ask the secretary if he knew and understood the rules?

 

...then again, in my job, I've found out that ignorance is not an excuse (in London and at the club).

[Dillinger]

 

 

 

 

They seem to have got TV/Press onside , Charles Sale in the Mail today compares it to the WHU/Mascherano,Tevez scenario , bit of one rule for the rich

[Hoops@BTFC]

No fans' coach for Horsham

 

 

We have been making losses on most of our fans' coaches for away trips this season and sometimes these losses have been substantial. We cannot continue to make losses in this way and in future we will lonly provide coaches for away games where we expect significant demand. We will also need to increase prices for those coaches.

 

As a result of this review, we are not running a fans' coach to Horsham next Saturday. We are sorry that we have had to take this action but we cannot continue to subsidise coach travel in this way.

 

From the AFC website, looks like the loss of points has had an adverse affect on more than their league position. So much for the wombles booming away support.

[Hoops@BTFC]

Originally Posted By: Hoops@BTFC

From AFCW Website - No fans' coach for Horsham


We have been making losses on most of our fans' coaches for away trips this season and sometimes these losses have been substantial. We cannot continue to make losses in this way and in future we will lonly provide coaches for away games where we expect significant demand. We will also need to increase prices for those coaches.

As a result of this review, we are not running a fans' coach to Horsham next Saturday. We are sorry that we have had to take this action but we cannot continue to subsidise coach travel in this way.

From the AFC website, looks like the loss of points has had an adverse affect on more than their league position. So much for the wombles booming away support.

[Hoops@BTFC]

Woops thats my first post. Had a bit of trouble mastering the program.

[Keith.P]

Welcome Hoops. My personal take on this is the following. Having subsidised coaches ALL through a season must take a toll on finances, and lets face it (us) non (eg)Chelski clubs cannot afford to do it. The problem then is that as soon as subsidised coaches are withdrawn it will hit the fan who has become "used" to it. I prefer the cost to be normal price as then "if" a coach is filled it can run and not lose money, and vice versa "if" a coach cannot be filled then it does not run thus not losing the club money. By having the odd gesture of a free coach now and then IMO makes the fans more appreciative. Put it like this...If as a kid you went every week to your grandparents and they spoiled you with this that and the other and then all of a sudden they stopped, it would be a lot harder to take/understand. Where-as if you went and they offered you something as a treat every now and then, i believe that same kid would be not an expectant kid Any of that make sense !!!!

[Hoops@BTFC]

Yes i get the gist keith, but surely the 'mighty' (maybe not so mighty anymore) Wombles would at least supply one measly coach?

[Keith.P]

Originally Posted By: Hoops@BTFC

Wombles would at least supply one measly coach?

Do you mean their club should supply a coach? We work on the basis of a supporter goes and sources our coach which works effectively, and i would assume that the wombles have a supporters branch who would also now do the same?? Anyway, coaches for a lot of fans are not the done thing these days. A lot of folk like to make their own way to grounds and that is to each and everyones choice. The wombles away support is still pretty damn good with or without a coach(es), and the same applies in a ratio related manner to our away support.

[Hoops@BTFC]

Originally Posted By: Keith.P

The wombles away support is still pretty damn good with or without a coach(es)

I agree exactly keith, but it can't be as moral boosting for the players knowing that the (some) supporters arent so supportive anymore ...

... As the AFC support dwindles, the 'Blue Army' lives on.

[WokingJon]

Originally Posted By: Hoops@BTFC

Originally Posted By: Hoops@BTFC

From AFCW Website - No fans' coach for Horsham


We have been making losses on most of our fans' coaches for away trips this season and sometimes these losses have been substantial. We cannot continue to make losses in this way and in future we will lonly provide coaches for away games where we expect significant demand. We will also need to increase prices for those coaches.

As a result of this review, we are not running a fans' coach to Horsham next Saturday. We are sorry that we have had to take this action but we cannot continue to subsidise coach travel in this way.

From the AFC website, looks like the loss of points has had an adverse affect on more than their league position. So much for the wombles booming away support.

Problem is, AFCW decided to charge the same fare for all trips - £12 adults etc., so in this case it's cheaper to go by train. Might explain the lack of demand?

[WokingJon]

So, would you prefer the final table to be distorted due to an administrative error?

[Rick the Dick]

Quote:

So, would you prefer the final table to be distorted due to an administrative error?

 

 

No. But if you've fielded an ineligable player that's different. I think your only posible case is that, just because you cocked the admin up, that didn't render the player ineligable. In fact, as he subsequently got the clearance required, you may argue that retrospectively proves he was "elligable" all along ('scuse my spelling. can't be arsed to look it up ).

 

I don't have a clue if that's cause for an appeal or not, but it strikes me tha the FA need to be careful about leniancy on the ineligable player front. Otherwise we'll all be at it!

[GazzaBTFC]

Originally Posted By: WokingJon

So, would you prefer the final table to be distorted due to an administrative error?

Adminstrative error or not, it's a [****!!****] up and he was inelligable to play because of it (which ever way you "slice and dice it")

Ya know, ( I wasn't going to take this line but in for a penny) I've had a pig of a day today because of my (very rare) administrative errors (don't they happen to us all, eh? ) and I got what I deserved, which I took on the chin. If I bleated on, on how unfair life is and pleaded leniency, I would think life is a push over and I wouldn't learn from my mistakes (and would've certainly lost the respect of my peers not to mention my boss whom I owe a massive apology). Not to mention the loss of "pride" I bloody well feel at the mo for having one day "off" and becoming a [****!!****] wit for 24 hours !!!

As with your situation, it shouldn't had happened, it did, it won't happen again, get on with life and stop bleating all over the net (aimed at the collective, not at you).

Life happens, [****!!****] up is part of it, get over it.

[Hoops@BTFC]

Does anyone know how the AFC appeal is going at the mo? I've heard about all tha flashy lawyers, but nothing of what their actually doing. Typical.

[Balmoral Claret]

Flashy lawyers or not, IMO it's very, very, very unlikely that the decision will be overturned. As others have already pointed out, they broke the rules, and must pay the PRESCRIBED penalty. Any other decision will give every other club in the league carte blanche a good reason to break the rules themselves (possibly in order to gain an advantage over their rivals), in the knowledge that kicking up a stink can possibly minimise the penalty.