Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

AFC Wimbledon docked 18 points for fielding 'ineligible' player

edited February 2007 in General Charlton
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/02/27/is_afc_wimbledons_oversight_wo.html

"because AFC did not declare that he had previously been registered with a foreign governing body - the Welsh FA - while playing for Cardiff in the English league that they have been thrown out of the FA Trophy and docked all the points earned from the league matches in which he appeared."

One might think that the FA are either craxy or embarrassed by the success of AFC.

PS If they applied the same rule to Tevez and the other one, West Ham would probably be docked
zero points
«1

Comments

  • Very severe punishment! Sets a precedent which no doubt they won't follow..
  • I am not impressed with this, but possibly don't have enough knowledge to comment too bravely.

    Cardiff play in the English league, isn't it a fairly reasonable assumption to make about a player that he is registered with the appropriate body?

    I know that it is some one's job to check, but 18 points????
  • Good news (says totally unbiased Bromley FC fan)
  • Down the road from my parents is Altrincham FC.

    Saw a few of their games during the Xmas holidays

    They had 18 points docked for fielding an ineligible player towards the end of last season and that effectively relegated them to the Nationwide North.

    The decision was overturned and remained in the Nationwide Conference but not doing too well at the moment..

    18 points gawd blimey.
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Good news (says totally unbiased Bromley FC fan)

    As a previous (many years ago) regular Bromley fan, I think this decision is the most ludicrously harsh that I have ever heard. It's a bit like somebody getting a life sentence for doing 32 in a 30 mile an hour zone. Utterly crazy.

    Yes there may have been a technical breach of the rules but what is the effect of this clerical error on the teams around them? Put another way, if the form had been completed correctly would any football result have been any different? The answer is no. NO!!

    I hope there is a campaign to over turn this decision because I will certainly be joining it.
  • sounds like a conspiracy to me as thats the harshest treatment i've heard. Ridiculous.

    Dont they want them storming up the leagues?
  • Does seem that the person who's made this decision has something against them. Or wants them to stay in that league for the money they generate through the turnstiles. But as pork pie said in his message, Altrincham got their deduction over-turned so surely Wimbledon will too.
  • Good news, means Billericay can sneak into the play offs.

    Matt Jones blue and white army (we hate Chelmsford) :)
  • I do get the feeling that the FA would hate AFC Wimbledon getting into the Football League.

    Don't forget the FA commission said there would be no demand for a club in Wimbledon
  • Henry I'm surprised you can watch Bromley after what they did to George Wakeling and Billy Smith,especially as that prick Goldplums has taken over.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Don't think it is a pick on AFC thing. The rules are the same for every team and others have had points deducted for similar infringements. How it came about is a seperate matter but playing an elegiable player has to warrant a penalty of some sort.

    Also AFC haven't been storming up the leagues for some time now. This is there third season at level 7(one league below conference south) and they are currently 2nd and in a play-off place (one automatic place and one from a play-off). Bromley are third and a point behind AFC Winge-don
  • [cite]Posted By: northstandsteve[/cite]Henry I'm surprised you can watch Bromley after what they did to George Wakeling and Billy Smith,especially as that prick Goldplums has taken over.

    If I stopped watching a club cos they sacked the manager then...................
  • [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]I do get the feeling that the FA would hate AFC Wimbledon getting into the Football League.

    Don't forget the FA commission said there would be no demand for a club in Wimbledon

    But they play at Kingstonian's old ground
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Don't think it is a pick on AFC thing. The rules are the same for every team and others have had points deducted for similar infringements. How it came about is a seperate matter but playing an elegiable player has to warrant a penalty of some sort.

    Also AFC haven't been storming up the leagues for some time now. This is there third season at level 7(one league below conference south) and they are currently 2nd and in a play-off place (one automatic place and one from a play-off). Bromley are third and a point behind AFC Winge-don

    How long did it take Aldershot to get out of the same level, this is level has usually been the point where clubs slow the progression down a bit
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]

    Also AFC haven't been storming up the leagues for some time now. This is there third season at level 7(one league below conference south) and they are currently 2nd and in a play-off place (one automatic place and one from a play-off).

    From forming a new club to being 1 league position off a conference south place in 4 or so seasons is surely storming up the leagues?
  • Sure Henry, but come on 18 points is ridiculous for a tiny technical infringement? Give em a fine? 3 points maybe? If this is the level of punishment,then what sort of punishment goes for fielding a player who, if the facts were known, could not have played? i.e. a truely inelligible player who is registered to another team? Yes dock all the points. Surely not for an infringement which, had the true facts been known, would have resulted in the player being elligible.
  • [cite]Posted By: Chris_from_Sidcup[/cite]

    From forming a new club to being 1 league position off a conference south place in 4 or so seasons is surely storming up the leagues?

    not really as it is more like 6 years and two promotions but I'm no expert on AFC Wimbledon or non-league football so will stand corrected.
    [cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]Sure Henry, but come on 18 points is ridiculous for a tiny technical infringement? Give em a fine? 3 points maybe? If this is the level of punishment,then what sort of punishment goes for fielding a player who, if the facts were known, could not have played? i.e. a truely inelligible player who is registered to another team? Yes dock all the points. Surely not for an infringement which, had the true facts been known, would have resulted in the player being elligible.

    And if if had been AFC nobodies the punishment would have been the same. Why should Wimbledon get a lesser punishment because of their history? We are all quick enough to moan about the "big" teams getting off easy from the FA and UEFA. At non-league level AFC are a "big" team, at least financially.
  • Charlton Life in the Grauniad:

    From the link in the OP, follow the article down and half-way in the comments section:

    From "RHPrague":

    As a Charlton supporter, who witnessed Jermaine Darlington's debut at Millwall in 1992, I ask somebody to let me and others know where and how to offer our support. A good blog to reach us is at www.charltonlife.com

    And by the way, the real issue about West Ham's two Argentinians is not whether one of them has played for three clubs. It is whether their registration to play for West Ham adhered to the rules. The implication of that question is so much more important to the proper running of football than the JD one, that it beggars belief.

    well done to Richard W. for running the story, and please keep us all posted. And good luck to AFCW, and their fans whom many at Charlton identify with afetr our own travails from 89-92.
  • The way henry's talking about them he would have probably let the pre season friendly go ahead with MKDons if he was fans supporter then.
  • This is ridiculous - punishment for an administrative error, not for conniving or breaking the rules. I appreciate that ignorance of the law is no defence, but it hasn't harmed anyone, the games would not have finished differently. This at worst deserves a slap on the wrist, not a fine.
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]The way henry's talking about them he would have probably let the pre season friendly go ahead with MKDons if he was fans supporter then.

    Not at all. playing MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon breaking the rules are two different issues and what I'm saying is why are they being linked?

    As I said if it was AFC Nobodies no one would care or just say "so what", a bit like us with the Sankofa ban.

    Because it's AFC it is being suggested that the punishment is because of who they are. And as SD I've been in contact with one of their trustees for many months. In fact I'm going to contact him, local rivalry apart, to get the full story and see if there is a case to be made.
    [cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]This is ridiculous - punishment for an administrative error, not for conniving or breaking the rules. I appreciate that ignorance of the law is no defence, but it hasn't harmed anyone, the games would not have finished differently. This at worst deserves a slap on the wrist, not a fine.

    Perhaps an admin error or oversight but still a breaking of the rules. I agree that it does not seem like an attempt to gain an unfair advantage but could not the other sides who have been punished for the same "crime" claim the same. The other sides in the league may well claim that they have been harmed in that they had to follow the rules and would have been punished had they not done so. I do agree that 18 pts seems excessive but this was because it took so long to come to light. It was only when Darlington was booked that it was realised what has happened.
  • "The other sides in the league may well claim that they have been harmed in that they had to follow the rules and would have been punished had they not done so"


    This wasn't an attempt to break the rules by playing a player illegally or some other malfeasance, just a simple admin cock-up. In this case AFCW ticked a box believing Darlington's last club was an amateur outfit in North London (for whom he'd played a few games after retiring from Cardiff).

    A punishment for breaking the law is in order, but this is disproportionate.
  • If they appeal would 18 points be deemed frivolous & the punishment doubled to 36 points ?
  • My point Henry was the connections with Palarse
  • [cite]Posted By: northstandsteve[/cite]My point Henry was the connections with Palarse

    Yeah, cos we wouldn't want to support a team with an ex-Palace man as manager ;-)
  • [cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]If they appeal would 18 points be deemed frivolous & the punishment doubled to 36 points ?

    Bang on comment.
  • Didn't answer Curb it question did you, you Palace Lite supporter!
  • It's over the top, but at the same time it's not because they are AFC and the FA hates them.

    Check out poor Lancaster.

    They lost 10 points for going in to Admin, shame they only had 9.
  • [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Didn't answer Curb it question did you, you Palace Lite supporter!

    Yes I did. Read it again
  • I think 18 points is a hell of a lot when you consider clubs in administration only get ten points deducted. The points total makes it a big issues but the natue of the offence (not the admin error but the fact that he shouldn't have been playing) means that the points deducted have to accrue in this way. Any other option would be unfair on the clubs who missed out on potential points when playing AFC.

    This is only a big issue because:

    1. it took so long to pick up and therefore the deduction is big
    2. the cause of the offence was so minor
    3. AFC wimbledon have the media clout to make it a big issue

    and mainly number three.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!