AFC Wimbledon - ePetition to the Sports Minister

[bigtw]

Unfortunately all clubs sign up to the constitution of the league before they start the season. The rules and

punishment are laid down and formulated by the commitee of the league the clubs secretaries and officials and voted on at the AGM.

 

If KFC did

'nt know about the rules and punishment why did they sign upto them in the first place.

 

 

[TonyM]

Originally Posted By: Chris1

So to all those above who would like to profit from another club's misfortune:

if it turns out Margate FC have made a minor administrative oversight with, say, Danny Hockton's registration, will you be happy to have 52 points deducted?

Would you expect other clubs' fans to support us if we appealed?

Oh Chris,for gods sake give it up,you think its wrong,some think its right,lets agree to disagree,rules are set to be ruled by,if you go against the rules you MUST be punish and except the punishment,if KFC have broken the rules its there fault and it dont concern us or no other team you get your own house in order not other peoples,its nice to be a good Samaritan but some people take it too far,just let the powers that be judge on that and leave it alone.

[abdullah]

Originally Posted By: Chris1

So to all those above who would like to profit from another club's misfortune:

if it turns out Margate FC have made a minor administrative oversight with, say, Danny Hockton's registration, will you be happy to have 52 points deducted?

Would you expect other clubs' fans to support us if we appealed?

Yes to the point deduction and No to other clubs fans appealling. It is not a question of profiting but of fairness to the rest of the Clubs who follow the rules.

Its a toughie but Wimbledon have not followed procedures. Each team they took points off they have taken points off unfairly because they played a womble who was not eligible to play for them.

The only place for manoevre, as I see it, would be a counter argument from Wimbledon that the League should have had procedures in place to have (1) spotted this and (2)acted earlier,and that the points deduction is harsh because of the Leagues inaction.Or (3) it is harsh compared to other punitive measures For points 1 and 2 it isn't much of an argument because the rule book is likely to put all the emphasis on the Club's actions. Any arbitrator is likely to rely upon the facts and rules relating the infringement of the rules.

As for point (3) - this would need a future rule change. So whilst I appreciate you only suffer 10 points for going into administration and KFC will lose 18 points for a technical failure, it needs a rule change. The League have to take into account that every Club who lost points to Wimbledon in the games that Darlington played in, could appeal against the loss and seek to have the points themselves or the game replayed!

So I think the League must stand by the ruling.

If the Dons want to behave like a senior club then they must act like a senior club when it comes to the rules.

Abdullah the Gate!

[Frankie100]

In the late 70s Tonbridge played 3 players in a Kent Senior Cup game in breach of the rules. They won 2 - 1 and when the misdemenour was pointed out the Kent County FA changed the rule in question and let the result stand

 

[abdullah]

We are now in a litigation age - I would hate to think where the KCFA would stand on this nowadays in a court of law!

 

Abdullah m'lud!

[Bitch]

Originally Posted By: Frankie100

In the late 70s Tonbridge played 3 players in a Kent Senior Cup game in breach of the rules. They won 2 - 1 and when the misdemenour was pointed out the Kent County FA changed the rule in question and let the result stand

And that is the difference. A deliberate breach of the rules should be severley punished

Thankfully we have moved on from the 70's and the Club is run in a more befitting manner

[Chris1]

I enjoy non-league football because of the friendliness and camaraderie between fans.

 

Yes I know there is banter and rivalry, but not hatred. Those of that persuasion should align themselves with the Man U and Chelseas of this world.

 

I get no pleasure at all from the misfortunes of other non-league clubs, not because of their owners, but because of their fans.

 

What has happened here is that a rule, or rather the prescribed punishment for breaking the rule, has been found to be unjust. Why? Because only one ‘offence’ was committed – the failure to fill in this ICC form. However the punishment is on a sliding scale, dependent upon when the misdemeanour was discovered.

 

The only way to justify the sliding scale is to suppose that a separate offence was committed on every occasion the player in question appeared. In order for this to be the case the club would have had to knowingly breach the rule each time to gain some advantage. As we all know, this is not the case.

 

Given that fact, no other club could (or would) try to claim back points lost to AFCW. To do so they would have to demonstrate that AFC gained an advantage in some way: clearly not possible.

 

So the rule is wrong, and as others have predicted, will no doubt be changed in the future.

 

Can the points deduction be altered? Well let’s not take this too seriously. The Ryman League is really a rather minor walk of life, is it not? We are not talking about international war crimes here. Nor is this an offence under the laws of the land.

 

No, it is a rather obscure procedural matter, for which the punishment does not fit the crime. No doubt those who drafted and voted for the rule did not think it through to its possible consequences.

 

Those who make rules can change them. Somewhere in the small print will be a phrase to the effect of ‘the board’s decision will be final’. The Ryman board should recognise that this is an inequity that should be corrected.

 

Every club in the league knows that it could easily have been them. It’s all very well fans saying ‘not our problem’, ‘rules is rules’ etc. Next time it might be our problem. I for one hope we fans will stick up for what is right, regardless of which club we support.

 

Sorry to go on (those that bothered to read the above!). I see I have already been criticised for posting too much on this subject. But hey, fairness is something I feel strongly about.

 

Reduce the deduction to 10 points. Alter the rule to include the words ‘up to a maximum of 10 points’.

 

[Uncle Urchin]

Sorry to go on (those that bothered to read the above!). I see I have already been criticised for posting too much on this subject. But hey, fairness is something I feel strongly about.

 

If that is the case then surely you must realise that the only 'fair' way to deal with this matter is to be consistent with the punishment handed out to other clubs. Or are you advocating one rule for one and one rule for those with lesser resources for litigation?

[michael]

I don't recall too much sympathy afforded to us fans by other clubs when we had points deducted three seasons ago,for what could also be conceived as an administrative mistake (demolishing the ground prematurely).

 

Is not the point though that the Ryman clubs ratified the rules at start of season-incl. the chairmen of AFC and Margate -so then was the time to think-this rule is not correct-not now.

What other rules were ratified pre-season that we would now like changed.!!

By lending our 'official 'support to AFC,are Margate football club also not saying that i know we agreed to the rules, but we did'nt mean it.

What else don't we mean ?

Lots of things we don't like or are wrong in hindsight, but i just can't see how you can change things halfway through .

 

All credibility is lost

 

[Coffin Ender]

Michael, interesting to raise the 10-point deduction we had a couple of years ago.

The problem with that was the main person responsible for that situation arising had left/abandoned the club and effectively went unpunished. Rather than deducting points, I think a more fitting punishment would have been to ban a certain person from running a football club ever again.

 

 

[Uncle Urchin]

I seem to recall an incident earlier this season where a visiting club to kingsmeadow questioned the gate receipts from a cup tie...well lordy lordy...there was much indignation and pontification from the womble chairman and grand statements issued proclaiming 'we are a professionally run organisation and we don't make mistakes like that' (sic)

 

Well they do and they have, perhaps the fans should look at the clubs own administrative shortcomings before accusing us all of being anti wimbledon...

 

its only a matter of time before the dreaded afcw boycott is issued against some club or other over this...

[David Holden]

Originally Posted By: Dave Dixon

Fine should be squashed but not the points.
Sorry.

They wern't fined!!!

The £12,000 was the prize money that they "earned" in the Trophy whilst Darlington was playing. Obviously this had to be returned.

[Cookie]

Together with the 18 pts didn't they also get fined £400? Possibly not the figure Dave is on about I agree but a fine WAS imposed David,as far as I recall.

I sympathise with the club. Not only were they punished ONCE but 5 times.

1)Their local cup-kicked out of.

2)The F.A.Trophy - kicked out of.

3)Repay the winning prize money for that Trophy run.

4)Pay the £400 fine that went with the,

5)18 point deduction.

Surely a lot of punishments for such a small error.I know,maybe a small error but an error nevertheless.

Its not like the player was a Rooney after all is it?

I also agree with others though,those who feel that the rules WERE broken & therefore something has to be done.I believe they must be accountable in some way or another.Its a hard one to call.

As the rules stand they may not get anywhere with their appeals & may have to bite the bullet.But some kind of change should be discussed after the season has closed.

I really cant see those that inflicted the punishments backing down on this one.

Good luck to AFC but I fear somehow that they are on to a loser with their appeals.

We shall see!

[David Holden]

Tony, I was merely pointing out the factual errors in the petition.

 

Perhaps I should also should also have mention that the 18 points were deducted by the Ryman League and not by the FA (who will be hearing the appeal)

 

I didn't notice the AFC board getting this excited when Altrincham had points deducted last season (also 18 and for the same offence) so presumably they didn't think it was quite so unfair then.

[Cookie]

Fair enough.A minor misunderstanding on my part.Apologies.

[MFC Forever]

The FA at the end of the season should change the rule so that all leagues throughout the pyramid have the same punishment, be it a maximum deduction or whatever, and then The FA should ensure that all clubs are aware of this. They should also ensure that the size of the crime is proportional to the size of the penalty. For AFC Wimbledon though this will be too late as they broke the current rule, not a rule they wish there was, and so I cannot see the deduction being reduced, however fair or unfair it is.

 

Maybe we will see a change in other rules and their penalties when they are discussed for next season?

[Chris1]

Uncle Urchin, thank you for taking the time to read my post.

 

If you are referring to 10 points deduction for entering administration, I support that as a necessary deterrent to clubs wishing to live beyond their means.

 

Does overlooking the ICC form constitute a greater danger to the integrity of the sport? If the answer is no the punishment should not be greater.

 

I do not think the rulemakers envisaged the present situation, where a club could potentially lose every point gained during a season due to a minor administrative error.

 

I am asking them to redress that. And of course to apply the rule fairly to every club.

 

If I am misunderstanding your post please correct me.

[abdullah]

My friends, you have all contributed greatly to the debate, and the Leagues would do well to review these threads to guage the fans opinions! In particular both Bitch and Chris1 have commented on the severity/ non-severety of a failure to obey the rule book. I agree;-

 

(1) In investigating irregularities if the FA, Ryman etc establish deliberate flouting of the rules the punishment should be severe on those involved.

 

(2) I also suspect that the League never envisaged that a minor error could lead to a potentially massive punishment.

 

But the rule is in the rule book specifically to ensure that a player is qualified to play for the Club. If they come from abroad, (or Wales!!!!), then they have to have international clearance. (I don't actually know why but I presume it is because a player can be banned elsewhere from playing, be cup-tied or illegible to play in certain games or there is requirements to have work permits etc.) The League have put in place a deterent of a loss of points, which presumably the Clubs have endorsed at some point, but the rule does not distinguish between a blatant failure or a minor error.

 

This is something that needs to be addressed and I expect rule changes will be in place before we start next season.

 

People are talking about fairness to Wimbledon. There remains the question of fairness to all the other clubs who abide by the rule especially those who lost points in games that Darlington played in. In each of those games his inclusion may have made a major factor in Wimbledon securing the points.

 

Wimbledon remain guity as charged and should lose the points in accordance with the current rules. However, if you ditch the word fairness and replace it with the word equitable, I think it would be an equitable punishment for them to lose, say, 12 points. It would show to the Club that they must adhere to the rules and act as a deterent for the future. But if the League does not punish them as per the rule book but agrees a lesser charge, then you set a precedent for all clubs to argue their future misdemeanors as minor infringements and they will expect to minimise their punishment.

 

So 12 points equitable but I still think the full 18 points loss would be right!

 

We will know after 26th March. I would not be surprised if it takes some time beyond that date for a decision.

 

Abdullah

[abdullah]

I have read on another forum Darlington played 19 games. So an 18 point loss works out less than a point per game!

 

Some would say that was equitable also!

 

Abdullah II - the sequil!

[djw]

Bet you it will get reduced to 9 points.....Watch this space ! dan