Fulham , Cardiff , Norwich Take Sunderland to Court

[Sammyffc]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/03/sunderland-face-legal-fight-points-deduction

The Premier League is facing the possibility of a legal battle with three of their own clubs after it emerged that Cardiff City, Norwich City and Fulham have joined forces and instructed lawyers to fight the controversial decision not to dock Sunderland points for fielding an ineligible player.

The Observer can reveal that the first steps have been taken by a self-appointed "Gang of Three" to initiate proceedings about the way Sunderland were let off with a six-figure fine despite fielding Ji Dong-won in four league games, spread over seven weeks, earlier this season. Norwich and Cardiff have enlisted Fulham's support to challenge the league, and a legal letter has been sent on behalf of the three clubs arguing that the offence was serious enough to merit a points deduction.

Sunderland's 1-0 win at Manchester United today helped to relegate Fulham and Cardiff, and leaves the north-east club on a brilliant run of form, three points above third-from-bottom Norwich and on the verge of completing what Gus Poyet has described as a "miracle" escape.

However, there is now the distinct threat of a legal fight continuing into the summer if Sunderland's remarkable sequence of results – also including a 2-1 win at Chelsea and a 2-2 draw at Manchester City – finishes with them securing their top-flight status. The three clubs taking on the league are demanding a review of the Ji case. If that request is turned down, there is the strong chance that whichever club finishes 18th will sue.

League Two side AFC Wimbledon have just been docked three points for fielding an ineligible player and the lawyers for Norwich, Cardiff and Fulham have put together a lengthy list of cases in which other clubs have broken the rules in similar positions and lost points as a result.

Their argument is that Sunderland have been treated as an exception, whereas there is a clear history of evidence – going down the leagues – that this offence ought to merit more than a fine.

Altrincham are the extreme example, docked 18 points in 2006 after signing a player, James Robinson, from Accrington Stanley without realising he had never received international clearance after a previous spell in Iceland. In the vast majority of cases, the punishment has been a three-point deduction.

Demanding an explanation about why the authorities tried to keep the Sunderland case quiet, the legal letter argues that it is unjust that another club might be relegated because of the leniency shown to Poyet's team, and highlights the vast sums of money that would be forfeited by a club dropping into the Championship.

The lawyers also note that Poyet has admitted being surprised the punishment was not heavier, and that Sunderland's manager has stated publicly that Southampton should have been awarded the victory when Ji played in the 1-1 draw at St Mary's in August.

Ji played in three other league fixtures – against Fulham, Crystal Palace and Manchester United. Sunderland lost all of them, which was one of the factors in the league's decision-making, along with the fact that the club had reported their own mistake at the first opportunity. Ji needed international clearance because he had been on loan at Augsburg. Liz Coley, Sunderland's secretary, left her position shortly after the error came to light.

Rule 6.9 in the Football Association's relevant statutes states that "any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record". It adds that "the board ... may also levy penalty points against the club in default".

However, the league believes it has a watertight case because of the wording of the rules. On 4 April, Poyet said: "I'm not saying we should have been docked points, but I would understand if we had. It's incredible. The rules should be clear. It should be one rule. The words 'may' or 'might' in the rules in England, they are unbelievable. They give you a chance to do whatever you like. It shouldn't be may or might. It should be the rule. Yes or no. Then there is no grey area."

Ji also featured in Sunderland's 4-2 win over Milton Keynes Dons in the second round of the Capital One Cup. The case was not heard until Sunderland had reached the semi-finals and the Football League opted against removing them from the competition. Instead, Sunderland received a second fine and agreed to keep the matter on a need-to-know basis, only for the story to be leaked to a national newspaper last month.



PART TWO

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/may/03/gus-poyet-sunderland-points-ji-dong-won-ineligible

Before anyone accuses this so-called Gang of Three of sour grapes, just imagine the fuss if it was one of the clubs competing for the title that had fielded an ineligible player and escaped a points deduction. Imagine if it was Manchester City with Fernandinho, or Chelsea with Willian, or Liverpool with Mamadou Sakho, rather than Sunderland and Ji Dong-won. Then consider the way the piped music of the Premier League would have turned into a heavy metal moshpit. There would have been uproar.

Alternatively, drop down to the other end of football to understand a little more about why Norwich, Cardiff and Fulham believe Sunderland were let off too lightly in the Ji case and have instructed lawyers to take it up with the league. Look at what has happened to AFC Wimbledon over the past week, docked three points for fielding an ineligible player. Or the mother of all punishments that left Altrincham, an even smaller club, on their knees a few years ago.

At their level, Altrincham will always struggle to be heard above the din of the higher leagues. Yet it is some story. As one campaigner wrote in a letter to the Football Association at the time: "Altrincham's crime was not to cheat, nor was it to engage deliberately in any type of misconduct, it was simply to sign an English footballer from another English club in good faith."

The player in question, a Liverpudlian by the name of James Robinson, had been scouted playing for Accrington Stanley reserves. What Altrincham did not know was that he had previously had a short spell at IVB, an Icelandic club, and that meant they needed international clearance. A cross was marked in the box when it should have been a tick. Accrington were fined £250 but nothing more because he never played in their first team. Altrincham were not so lucky. The 18-point deduction is the highest doled out for this kind of offence – and it meant automatic relegation from the Conference. As Geoff Goodwin, Altrincham's chairman at the time, remembers it: "It ripped out my heart."

They were reinstated the following season because Scarborough were demoted for breaching financial rules and Canvey Island withdrew from the league. That, however, is not the point, and it is not too difficult to guess what they make of Sunderland getting off with a fine from the Premier League for not having Ji's international clearance. Goodwin's take on it, when we spoke a few days ago, was short and to the point. "The football authorities in this country look at the smaller clubs and just stand on them," he said.

It is tempting to wonder what they make of it at Oxford City, too, bearing in mind they were docked three points in March after fielding a player they did not realise should have been suspended and have just been relegated from Conference North – by two points. For them, there has been no Altrincham-style reprieve and there is already a human cost. The manager, Mike Ford, has just been informed that dropping down a division has cost him his job.

On it goes. Harrogate Town, another Conference North club run by a skeleton staff, were docked three points in September for fielding three players in a match when their registrations had not been completed properly. Wimbledon's case came about because a virus had closed down the club's offices. The member of staff who was meant to sign off the forms was ill and the message never reached the team's manager. Another genuine mistake and, again, one that had to be punished.

It is not that these clubs have lost points that is strange. It is that, higher in the leagues, another club kept all theirs. "All you want is some level of consistency," Goodwin says. "Instead, it's one rule for one and one for another. That's unfair." And he is right.

That is partly what has compelled Norwich and Cardiff to bring Fulham on board and start exploring the possibilities of legal action. They will inevitably be accused of meddling and it is easy to imagine it being thrown back at them – with a degree of justification – that if they wanted to stay in the league they should have won more games rather than relying on one of their rivals losing points through an administrative error. Equally, they are entitled to fair play and openness and there is something profoundly unsatisfactory about the way Sunderland's breach of rules B14.5 and U11 was handled. There has never been any explanation about why the relevant authorities were so keen to keep it schtum. These stories always come out sooner or later and the attempt at secrecy created the suspicion there was something to hide. Memo to Richard Scudamore: this is an industry that finds it almost impossible to keep a secret.

Sunderland cite the fact that three of the four league games in which Ji played were defeats. Yet who thought up this theory that playing badly should mean getting away with it? The club have still broken the rules over a sustained period, no matter how their games panned out. Every case is different, naturally, but Gus Poyet is correct when he says there should be a clear punishment that everyone knows. There is for falling into administration, or racism, or any manner of other offences – just not for fielding an ineligible player.

For the record, Sunderland drew 1-1 at Southampton when Ji was a second-half substitute, and they also beat Milton Keynes Dons 4-2 in the second round of the Capital One Cup. Sunderland were losing 2-0 when the South Korea international was substituted after 49 minutes but, again, that is missing the point. The Football League had the option to throw Sunderland out of the cup. Instead, a fine was issued, followed by another pact of secrecy, and Sunderland went all the way to the final, earning an awful lot more money than they were made to hand over in return.

So what happens So what happens next? My suspicion is that the Gang of Three will ultimately become a Gang of One (whoever finishes third from bottom) if Sunderland stay up. Poyet described his team as needing a "miracle" after losing 5-1 at Spurs last month but, since then, they have thrashed Cardiff, come within two minutes of winning at Manchester City and been the first-ever team to condemn José Mourinho's Chelsea to defeat at Stamford Bridge. The 1-0 win at Manchester United todayleaves them three points clear of the relegation zone with two home games to follow against West Brom and Swansea. The miracle is almost complete.

But it is not just Norwich, Cardiff and Fulham who consider it unfair. Steve Bruce and Sam Allardyce, the managers of Hull and West Ham respectively, have said the same. Other clubs, such as West Brom, have expressed concerns.

A few miles from the Stadium of Light, Seaham Red Star were automatically docked three points by the Northern League this season because of a mix-up concerning the forms for a loaned player. To recap, this is what the league's chairman, Mike Amos, said of the registration process: "Sometimes it's not just a wrong 'un but a right wrong 'un – a deliberate attempt at cheating. On other occasions it's the result of an innocent and unfortunate mistake." Seaham, he said, fell into the second category, but the deduction was mandatory so it would not "leave us open to allegations of bias or worse".

It is a shame the Premier League did not have a more defined system because what we have now is getting messy. It also has the potential to become a great deal messier and, when staying in the top division is worth tens of millions of pounds every year, nobody should really be surprised it has come to this.



PART THREE UPDATE :

Daniel Taylor @DTguardian  ·  46m
One thing to clarify on that last story. It's not a post-relegation process (or leak). Legal letter was fired off before events today.

[Rhys Lightning 63]

As if them dropping one point will make a difference

[Artful Dodger]

Lets just go quietly with some dignity. We were awful and deserve to be relegated and even a 3 point deduction may not be enough! Besides, didn't they only get 1 point from their first 5 games anyway, so it didn't make any difference.

[Baszab]

Don't agree - this was blatant cheating which even A Mackintosh would have realised that the paperwork wasn't correct - Sunderland should be docked points the same as any non-Premier club

[Northern Cottager]

Could anything come of this?

[Nero]

The FA will say sod off take it to court, time it get there it will be the middle of next season so no.

[Burt]

Not sure of the legal ins and outs but if Sunderland escaped a points deduction when the clear precedent is just that then it should be pursued.

It doesn't detract from the fact that we are where we are on merit (or lack of it), and fully deserve to go down.

[AlexH]

I think we should just accept it - let's face it we don't deserve to stay up.

[PokerMatt]

If they get a points deduction we'll finish below Norwich or Cardiff anyway.