https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-premier-league-a-petition-for-the-premier-league-to-reconsider-their-decision-regarding-afc-sunderland-playing-an-ineligible-player (https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-premier-league-a-petition-for-the-premier-league-to-reconsider-their-decision-regarding-afc-sunderland-playing-an-ineligible-player)
Get signing and get sharing.
Desperate?
Can we not get relegated with a little bit of dignity left?
If we can throw away a 2 nil lead we deserve to get relegated
Quote from: God The Mechanic on April 28, 2014, 07:51:45 PM
Can we not get relegated with a little bit of dignity left?
Quote from: shnlwswlkr on April 28, 2014, 07:40:29 PM
Desperate?
get relegated & potentially lose all of our best assets? Khan loses interest & we're stuck in the lower leagues again without any proper investment?!
Quote from: God The Mechanic on April 28, 2014, 07:51:45 PM
Can we not get relegated with a little bit of dignity left?
Exactly.
Quote from: KingstonWhite on April 28, 2014, 08:01:14 PM
Quote from: God The Mechanic on April 28, 2014, 07:51:45 PM
Can we not get relegated with a little bit of dignity left?
Quote from: shnlwswlkr on April 28, 2014, 07:40:29 PM
Desperate?
get relegated & potentially lose all of our best assets? Khan loses interest & we're stuck in the lower leagues again without any proper investment?!
He's a very successful business something you don't become by selling when your stocks low. He won't do a runner if we go down.
Quote from: KingstonWhite on April 28, 2014, 07:29:35 PM
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-premier-league-a-petition-for-the-premier-league-to-reconsider-their-decision-regarding-afc-sunderland-playing-an-ineligible-player (https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-premier-league-a-petition-for-the-premier-league-to-reconsider-their-decision-regarding-afc-sunderland-playing-an-ineligible-player)
Get signing and get sharing.
NO
I get what everyone is saying re not signing but it is a JOKE that Sunderland haven't been given a deduction when the smaller teams get them straight away....
I recall Luton practically getting ruined by the FA a few years back yet other teams were given their deductions at times when it didn't harm them (I believe Leeds were one of the "lucky ones")
Quote from: Humbled on April 28, 2014, 09:51:29 PM
I get what everyone is saying re not signing but it is a JOKE that Sunderland haven't been given a deduction when the smaller teams get them straight away....
I recall Luton practically getting ruined by the FA a few years back yet other teams were given their deductions at times when it didn't harm them (I believe Leeds were one of the "lucky ones")
0001.jpeg
Quote from: Humbled on April 28, 2014, 09:51:29 PM
I get what everyone is saying re not signing but it is a JOKE that Sunderland haven't been given a deduction when the smaller teams get them straight away....
I recall Luton practically getting ruined by the FA a few years back yet other teams were given their deductions at times when it didn't harm them (I believe Leeds were one of the "lucky ones")
+1
No point. the rule is clear, it is not an automatic points deduction
AFC Wimbledon were just docked 3 points for this: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/28/afc-wimbledon-three-point-deduction (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/28/afc-wimbledon-three-point-deduction)
Petitions seem pointless, though. If it's going to happen, it will happen in court.
i think we should sign. this was a case of bias towards one of the premier leagues favourites, a big club in the NE with a big stadium, it was more about money than fairness IMO. The descision was barking and we should say so.
It compares unfourably with how west ham and man utd were treated with regard to tevez.
The Tevez affair was about 3rd party ownership if I remember and that is illegal as the team don't own the players registration, I could be wrong tho, if I am right it's not the same situation.
Also FL rules are differently that do the PL in respect to arc wimbledons punishment
Quote from: westcliff white on April 28, 2014, 10:32:41 PM
The Tevez affair was about 3rd party ownership if I remember and that is illegal as the team don't own the players registration, I could be wrong tho, if I am right it's not the same situation.
Also FL rules are differently that do the PL in respect to arc wimbledons punishment
We'll be a football league team next year though :'(
Quote from: God The Mechanic on April 28, 2014, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: westcliff white on April 28, 2014, 10:32:41 PM
The Tevez affair was about 3rd party ownership if I remember and that is illegal as the team don't own the players registration, I could be wrong tho, if I am right it's not the same situation.
Also FL rules are differently that do the PL in respect to arc wimbledons punishment
We'll be a football league team next year though :'(
the point was that fundamental rules were broken and need to be punished correctly... everyone expected a points deduction but none happened. I was trying to indicate that the prem do not take the required action and as a result set a very poor example/
yes i believe the league are different, but they seem to have more of an idea about this.
But we agree to abide by the rules of the PL, not just when they suit us but when we feel hard done by by them. You can't pick and choose, you either accept the laws that they propose and the punishments stated for breaking them or you should forfeit your place in the division. If Sunderland have been punished to the letter of the law then we can't really look to complain and state that laws elsewhere would be more favourable to us in this situation, that's pathetic.
I really think we should rise above this one. I can't justify us staying in the league unless we have better points and goal difference than the teams around us without resorting to legal disputes. No offence to a well meaning OP but I don't want to be rummaging through every club in the leagues rubbish to find an excuse to keep us in this league. Win the next two and stay up or crash out with pride.
Seems to be one law for the powerful cash cows of the Prem, and one for the rest.
Where's the justice in that?
Quote from: nose on April 29, 2014, 12:19:06 AM
Quote from: God The Mechanic on April 28, 2014, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: westcliff white on April 28, 2014, 10:32:41 PM
The Tevez affair was about 3rd party ownership if I remember and that is illegal as the team don't own the players registration, I could be wrong tho, if I am right it's not the same situation.
Also FL rules are differently that do the PL in respect to arc wimbledons punishment
We'll be a football league team next year though :'(
the point was that fundamental rules were broken and need to be punished correctly... everyone expected a points deduction but none happened. I was trying to indicate that the prem do not take the required action and as a result set a very poor example/
yes i believe the league are different, but they seem to have more of an idea about this.
Apologies I thought you were comparing the incidents. The Tevez was a clear case for most that points should have been docked.
Quote from: nose on April 28, 2014, 10:25:01 PM
i think we should sign. this was a case of bias towards one of the premier leagues favourites, a big club in the NE with a big stadium, it was more about money than fairness IMO. The descision was barking and we should say so.
It compares unfourably with how west ham and man utd were treated with regard to tevez.
I've never read anything that bigged up Sunderland as much as this post. Big club, Premiership favourites, loads of money. If one of our supporters wrote that I'd think they needed to be sectioned.
This is not how I want to see us staying up.
I think/thought we were 'bigger' than this.
We go down because we were not good enough over 38 games.
we would look even stupider when we are relegated by one point and that point deduction would see us go down due to our goal difference. its villa we need to aim for
I just went onto the petition web to see how many had signed. I didn't sign but clicked on browse out of curiosity. Take a look at the petition for a father trying to get his autistic son back home. Now that one is worth signing.
Some people are getting really desperate.
A worthy cause. Sunderland should be deducted points.
Quote from: Nick Bateman on April 29, 2014, 10:11:14 PM
A worthy cause. Sunderland should be deducted points.
Why?
Because some fans are trying to cling onto the slightest bit of hope for staying up. Very desperate, if only our players had shown the same sort of desperation on the pitch, then we would not be in this mess
We don't deserve to be in the league....
Quote from: Deanothefulhamfan on April 30, 2014, 08:36:41 AM
Because some fans are trying to cling onto the slightest bit of hope for staying up. Very desperate, if only our players had shown the same sort of desperation on the pitch, then we would not be in this mess
We don't deserve to be in the league....
You can't say that really, the season isn't over and you guys are in the mire but not adrift. Given our game in hand I wouldn't swap positions with you, and don't envy you having Stoke away but as we've seen with our games at City and Chelsea anything can happen. It's squeaky bum time over the next couple of weeks for everyone at the bottom, could be interesting.
I asked this previously - can someone provide a link to the regulations, especially the penalties for those regulations, that specify what the punishments are, and whether they are mandatory or advice only.
I'm not interested in opinions, just in where I can find it.
I just couldn't get onboard with the idea of docking another team just to try and ensure our own salvation. I'd have to face the fact that that was the only reason that I did it. Just would be bad karma.
I recall reading the applicable law, or a portion of it, and remember quite clearly that a deduction in points was not mandatory, only a possibility depending upon the nature of the infraction (fielding the ineligible player). Sunderland were punished, I believe, to the extent the FA deemed appropriate in this case. I have no further argument with it.
Also, was the ineligible player only fielded in a cup competition? I don't know.
Quote from: Logicalman on April 30, 2014, 06:25:22 PM
I asked this previously - can someone provide a link to the regulations, especially the penalties for those regulations, that specify what the punishments are, and whether they are mandatory or advice only.
I'm not interested in opinions, just in where I can find it.
can't see the article but it was in the sidebar of the BBC sport article. There are two sets or rules that could have been applicable, the PL and FA, PL was used.
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on April 30, 2014, 07:12:37 PM
Also, was the ineligible player only fielded in a cup competition? I don't know.
1 cup game, 4 league games.
Quote from: bucksfulham on April 30, 2014, 06:43:52 PM
What's the downside of a petition? I've signed. Says 879 signatures still needed.
The downside is that it feels like a ridiculously petty thing to do, and also that it won't make a single difference. The FA has already found them guilty - a points deduction is one of the options but they chose another one.
I want us to stay up based on our results, and if those results aren't good enough, we deserve to go down. Sunderland might've made a mistake but it's not like they gained any advantage from the one they played him - they actually went from being ahead to a draw while that player was on the pitch.
Quote from: SAFC Fan on April 30, 2014, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on April 30, 2014, 06:25:22 PM
I asked this previously - can someone provide a link to the regulations, especially the penalties for those regulations, that specify what the punishments are, and whether they are mandatory or advice only.
I'm not interested in opinions, just in where I can find it.
can't see the article but it was in the sidebar of the BBC sport article. There are two sets or rules that could have been applicable, the PL and FA, PL was used.
Found the article (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26878545 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26878545)) but no other reference to anything official. The artcle does say they were fined, and no points deducted, and that they gained 1 point from the 4 matches played, but doesn't provide what the punishment could have actually been.
Quote from: Logicalman on May 01, 2014, 05:01:50 AM
Quote from: SAFC Fan on April 30, 2014, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on April 30, 2014, 06:25:22 PM
I asked this previously - can someone provide a link to the regulations, especially the penalties for those regulations, that specify what the punishments are, and whether they are mandatory or advice only.
I'm not interested in opinions, just in where I can find it.
can't see the article but it was in the sidebar of the BBC sport article. There are two sets or rules that could have been applicable, the PL and FA, PL was used.
Found the article (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26878545 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26878545)) but no other reference to anything official. The artcle does say they were fined, and no points deducted, and that they gained 1 point from the 4 matches played, but doesn't provide what the punishment could have actually been.
The punishment could have included a fine, deduction of points (1 point), or replays. I'd be happy enough playing those 4 games again
Does sound like sour grapes but I would like the FA to explain why within a couple of weeks they allow a premier team to get away with a ridiculously small fine(in relation as a % of payments received as a member of said league) and a small club like Wimbledon are docked 3 points plus a small 5k fine (not when taken as % income)plus costs for the exact same offence. They may not have any influence over the premier league committee but they could ban Sunderland for a couple of seasons FA cup to even it up. If the FA is to continue in its role it needs to actually be seen to do the right thing regardless especially when the Premier big boys close ranks on their little club.
Post on a Newcastle united forum and you'd get thousands of sign ups surely
Quote from: MasterHaynes on May 01, 2014, 10:24:28 AM
Does sound like sour grapes but I would like the FA to explain why within a couple of weeks they allow a premier team to get away with a ridiculously small fine(in relation as a % of payments received as a member of said league) and a small club like Wimbledon are docked 3 points plus a small 5k fine (not when taken as % income)plus costs for the exact same offence. They may not have any influence over the premier league committee but they could ban Sunderland for a couple of seasons FA cup to even it up. If the FA is to continue in its role it needs to actually be seen to do the right thing regardless especially when the Premier big boys close ranks on their little club.
. The FA didn't have anything to do with Sunderland's punishment as far as I know. Sure it was the PL in our case and the FL in Wimbledon's.
Quote from: JudgeBread on May 01, 2014, 10:50:50 AM
Post on a Newcastle united forum and you'd get thousands of sign ups surely
I signed your petition, not that I want to lose points, I thought it was funny.
Quote from: SAFC Fan on May 01, 2014, 09:13:01 AM
Quote from: Logicalman on May 01, 2014, 05:01:50 AM
Quote from: SAFC Fan on April 30, 2014, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on April 30, 2014, 06:25:22 PM
I asked this previously - can someone provide a link to the regulations, especially the penalties for those regulations, that specify what the punishments are, and whether they are mandatory or advice only.
I'm not interested in opinions, just in where I can find it.
can't see the article but it was in the sidebar of the BBC sport article. There are two sets or rules that could have been applicable, the PL and FA, PL was used.
Found the article (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26878545 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26878545)) but no other reference to anything official. The artcle does say they were fined, and no points deducted, and that they gained 1 point from the 4 matches played, but doesn't provide what the punishment could have actually been.
The punishment could have included a fine, deduction of points (1 point), or replays. I'd be happy enough playing those 4 games again
Okie-Dokey, after some considerable searching, reading, re-reading, misunderstanding and general madness, I found the applicable rules. You can review/download the PDF here: premier league handbook 2013 14 pdf (http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2013-14.pdf)
In an article the Daily Mail (urgh) cited rules: B14.5 and U11; According to the PL 2013/14 rule book the following applies:
Relationship between Clubs and the League:
B.14. Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the League and Clubs and between each Club to be bound by and comply with:
B.14.1. the Laws of the Game;
B.14.2. the Football Association Rules;
B.14.3. the Articles;
B.14.4. these Rules;
B.14.5. the statutes and regulations of FIFA;
B.14.6. the statutes and regulations of UEFA; and
B.14.7. the Regulations of the Professional Football Compensation Committee, each as amended from time to time.
International Registration Transfer Certificates:
U.11. An application to register a player who last played for a club affiliated to a national association other than the Football Association shall be accompanied by written confirmation from the Football Association that an international registration transfer certificate has been issued in respect of the player
Under the Discipline section (W) the following can be applied:
Commission's Powers:
W.53. Having heard and considered such mitigation (if any) the Commission may:
W.53.1. reprimand the Respondent;
W.53.2. impose upon the Respondent a fine unlimited in amount;
W.53.3. in the case of a Respondent who is a Manager, Match Official, Official or Player, suspend him from operating as such for such period as it shall think fit;
W.53.4. in the case of a Respondent which is a Club:
W.53.4.1. suspend it from playing in League Matches for such period as it thinks fit;
W.53.4.2. deduct points scored or to be scored in League Matches;
W.53.4.3. recommend that the Board orders that a League Match be replayed;
W.53.4.4. recommend that the League expels the Respondent from membership in accordance with the provisions of Rule B.7;
W.53.5. order the Respondent to pay compensation unlimited in amount to any Person or to any Club (or club);
W.53.6. cancel or refuse the registration of a Player registered or attempted to be registered in contravention of these Rules;
W.53.7. impose upon the Respondent any combination of the foregoing or such other penalty as it shall think fit;
W.53.8. order the Respondent to pay such sum by way of costs as it shall think fit which may include the fees and expenses of members of the Commission paid or payable under Rule W.51; and W.53.9. make such other order as it thinks fit.
My Interpretation:
The club being the respondent was liable to an unlimited fine; Payment of compensation (this is what Spammers got for the Tevez affair);Suspension from playing matches; Replay of all affected matches; Loss of points either obtained, or that can be obtained (?); Expulsion.
So, from what I can see, there was NOTHING automatic about any penalty imposition, and it was at the Commissions discretion what, if any, penalties would be imposed. I would suggest that because the club itself found what they termed an administrative error (that nobody else appeared to notice - not even the PL itself) and came forward asap, they mitigated likely punishments by that action alone.
So, I guess thats it then ....
.
