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
0
Comments
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????
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.
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.
Dont they want them storming up the leagues?
Matt Jones blue and white army (we hate Chelmsford) :)
Don't forget the FA commission said there would be no demand for a club in Wimbledon
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
If I stopped watching a club cos they sacked the manager then...................
But they play at Kingstonian's old ground
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, cos we wouldn't want to support a team with an ex-Palace man as manager ;-)
Bang on comment.
Check out poor Lancaster.
They lost 10 points for going in to Admin, shame they only had 9.
Yes I did. Read it again
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.