Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
«1

Comments

  • Crazy decision bigger clubs always get let off
  • was one blatent cheating and the other an admin error? I still think the punishment should be consistent. At the end of the day they are not allowed to play and did so the punishment should be the same.
  • Saw 'big club' and thought this was a thread about the one and only Sheffield Wednesday.
  • :-O completely shocked...

    Its just like the time Portsmouth went into Administration and were only docked 9-points because the Premier League said there are less teams in the Division!!
  • Maybe Wimbledon wanted the points deduction as they couldn't afford a fine and knew they wouldn't be relegated.
  • I think it's a little harsh to make that judgement because there is a lot of information about what happened with Sunderland and none about the AFC Wimbledon player. To make a fair big club small club issue you would have to know what AFC did or make it about the lack of reporting that exists on small clubs.
    But why let the (lack of) facts get in the way of a good scandal?
  • I am inclined to think different rules do apply to big clubs and small clubs West Ham being a classic historical example.

    However, having said that, in this case the respective decisions made do both have the merit of not affecting the potential league status of either club which, one could argue, is consistent.

    Whether that is the law of intended or unintended consequences is of course open to debate.
  • DRF said:

    I think it's a little harsh to make that judgement because there is a lot of information about what happened with Sunderland and none about the AFC Wimbledon player. To make a fair big club small club issue you would have to know what AFC did or make it about the lack of reporting that exists on small clubs.
    But why let the (lack of) facts get in the way of a good scandal?

    Did you not see the "?" in the title or are you being contrary again just for the sake of it? : - )

    "Sunderland have been fined by the Premier League after fielding Ji Dong-won in four league matches at a time when their South Korea striker had not received international clearance.

    Although he had first joined Sunderland in 2011, Ji spent much of last season in Germany on loan at Augsburg. When he returned an apparent administrative error led to him playing, mostly as a substitute, in games against Fulham, Southampton, Crystal Palace and Manchester United before the mistake was spotted.

    Realising they lacked a necessary piece of paperwork, Sunderland immediately alerted the Premier League and paid a fine that all parties agreed to keep discreet in December."
  • LenGlover said:

    I am inclined to think different rules do apply to big clubs and small clubs West Ham being a classic historical example.

    However, having said that, in this case the respective decisions made do both have the merit of not affecting the potential league status of either club which, one could argue, is consistent.

    Whether that is the law of intended or unintended consequences is of course open to debate.


    That's not the case now. It may have been at the time the fine was given but Sunderland are now above the relegation zone on goal difference so Norwich in particular may wonder how fair Sunderland's punishment was.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Premier League aren't interested in regulating
  • DRF said:

    I think it's a little harsh to make that judgement because there is a lot of information about what happened with Sunderland and none about the AFC Wimbledon player. To make a fair big club small club issue you would have to know what AFC did or make it about the lack of reporting that exists on small clubs.
    But why let the (lack of) facts get in the way of a good scandal?

    Did you not see the "?" in the title or are you being contrary again just for the sake of it? : - )

    "Sunderland have been fined by the Premier League after fielding Ji Dong-won in four league matches at a time when their South Korea striker had not received international clearance.

    Although he had first joined Sunderland in 2011, Ji spent much of last season in Germany on loan at Augsburg. When he returned an apparent administrative error led to him playing, mostly as a substitute, in games against Fulham, Southampton, Crystal Palace and Manchester United before the mistake was spotted.

    Realising they lacked a necessary piece of paperwork, Sunderland immediately alerted the Premier League and paid a fine that all parties agreed to keep discreet in December."
    Sigh.

    Yes Henry, it's everyone else who is contrary
    Making no comment in your post and half a statement in your title and then objecting to debate is in no way contrary.

    As for the rest of your thread you have simply posted that which I was able to read directly form the BBC so not sure what point you were trying to make (I suspect the opposite to whatever point I make in response).

    I've not been on this site in a week and I can't say I'm glad to be back.
  • So West Ham and Sunderland get fines, and these guys get points deductions. Definitely doesn't seem balanced. West Ham and Sunderland would have gone down with similar deductions, surely?
  • I guess the problem is having three different organisations running the game?

    There should be one set of rules, administered and reported by one organisation, but then that would mean less room for hangers on, on the gravy train.
  • edited April 2014
    DRF said:

    DRF said:

    I think it's a little harsh to make that judgement because there is a lot of information about what happened with Sunderland and none about the AFC Wimbledon player. To make a fair big club small club issue you would have to know what AFC did or make it about the lack of reporting that exists on small clubs.
    But why let the (lack of) facts get in the way of a good scandal?

    Did you not see the "?" in the title or are you being contrary again just for the sake of it? : - )

    "Sunderland have been fined by the Premier League after fielding Ji Dong-won in four league matches at a time when their South Korea striker had not received international clearance.

    Although he had first joined Sunderland in 2011, Ji spent much of last season in Germany on loan at Augsburg. When he returned an apparent administrative error led to him playing, mostly as a substitute, in games against Fulham, Southampton, Crystal Palace and Manchester United before the mistake was spotted.

    Realising they lacked a necessary piece of paperwork, Sunderland immediately alerted the Premier League and paid a fine that all parties agreed to keep discreet in December."
    Sigh.

    Yes Henry, it's everyone else who is contrary
    Making no comment in your post and half a statement in your title and then objecting to debate is in no way contrary.

    As for the rest of your thread you have simply posted that which I was able to read directly form the BBC so not sure what point you were trying to make (I suspect the opposite to whatever point I make in response).

    I've not been on this site in a week and I can't say I'm glad to be back.
    You missed the : - ) this time.

    Come on, you yourself said that you enjoyed being contrary, don't you remember?

    And it was you who said "But why let the (lack of) facts get in the way of a good scandal?"
  • DRF said:

    DRF said:

    I think it's a little harsh to make that judgement because there is a lot of information about what happened with Sunderland and none about the AFC Wimbledon player. To make a fair big club small club issue you would have to know what AFC did or make it about the lack of reporting that exists on small clubs.
    But why let the (lack of) facts get in the way of a good scandal?

    Did you not see the "?" in the title or are you being contrary again just for the sake of it? : - )

    "Sunderland have been fined by the Premier League after fielding Ji Dong-won in four league matches at a time when their South Korea striker had not received international clearance.

    Although he had first joined Sunderland in 2011, Ji spent much of last season in Germany on loan at Augsburg. When he returned an apparent administrative error led to him playing, mostly as a substitute, in games against Fulham, Southampton, Crystal Palace and Manchester United before the mistake was spotted.

    Realising they lacked a necessary piece of paperwork, Sunderland immediately alerted the Premier League and paid a fine that all parties agreed to keep discreet in December."
    Sigh.

    Yes Henry, it's everyone else who is contrary
    Making no comment in your post and half a statement in your title and then objecting to debate is in no way contrary.

    As for the rest of your thread you have simply posted that which I was able to read directly form the BBC so not sure what point you were trying to make (I suspect the opposite to whatever point I make in response).

    I've not been on this site in a week and I can't say I'm glad to be back.
    You missed the : - ) this time.

    Come on, you yourself said that you enjoyed being contrary, don't you remember?
    Come on Henry you really are getting to be a bore.
  • edited April 2014
    Seems that Sunderland and AFCW both failed to get international clearance so it seems the cases are very similar going on what information we have.
  • I sort of get the difference though as in Sunderland's case, he was already their player and just returning from a loan spell. I guess they had international clearance beforehand and maybe thought that this stood - I don't think that's unreasonable to be fair.

    With Wimbledon, it's a new signing and they probably should have realised from the off - plus he scored a goal in a winning game, for the match in question.
  • expect AFC to start moaning about it being a conspiracy, they'll start another on-line petition to the government.. whinge whinge moan... fking t0ssers...
  • Looking at the Sunderland one, I really don't think it deserves more than a fine anyway. It's clearly an administrative error of (not) getting something rubber stamped. There's no indication at all that it was deliberate or underhand. Why do the German FA have to clear it anyway? (I'm thinking out loud here - perhaps in case there's and suspentions to be carried over from bookings). Shouldn't there be a system where the onus is on various FA's to communicate with each other rather than placing a burden onto clubs? I'd have thought in this day and age they could quite easily introduce a web-based system where every FA in the world could automatically inform every other FA of any suspensions at the click of a button. Perhaps the Wimbledon money could go towards paying for it?

    As for the other two cases, there's not enough info to know whether justice was done or not.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Two different bodies. Two very different situations. Club size has nothing to do with the final decisions. Heck, Sunderland were the ones who pointed out the mistake on their end. There's really no connection beyond a conspiracy theory and "this country's gone to the dogs!" mentality.
  • edited June 2014
    Another case of one rule for the big club... another rule for the other.

    Red Star Belgrade (Champions of the European Cup back in 1991) have been chucked out of the Champions League next season for failing to pay their debts (under the FFP ruling) whilst Manchester City get a £50m fine (fair enough Red Star could never have paid this amount)... but great to see consistency again from the governing bodies!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27741460
  • Sunderland failed to win any of the matches he played in, whilst the Dons won theirs. Perhaps a fitting punishment would have been a one point deduction to Sunderland. I do find the inconsistencies across the game frustrating.
  • Another case of one rule for the big club... another rule for the other.

    Red Star Belgrade (Champions of the European Cup back in 1991) have been chucked out of the Champions League next season for failing to pay their debts (under the FFP ruling) whilst Manchester City get a £50m fine (fair enough Red Star could never have paid this amount)... but great to see consistency again from the governing bodies!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27741460

    That looks very very poor, and as you say, very typical. And will feed the Serbian sense of victimhood too. I have buddy out here who is a Partizan fan; they will take Red Star's place. Will get his take on it.
  • Just picked up on this thread. While it is fair to say that there is insufficient detail to determine the circumstances of Wimbledon's transgression, I have no doubt that the Premier League operates a different system of punishments to other English leagues.

    During the season of the Tevez debacle, AFC Wimbledon, then a non-league Club, were docked points for failing to tick the box for international clearance when signing Jermaine Darlington from a Club in Wales, Cardiff City I think from memory. This was a simple administrative oversight and was, in practice, of no consequence because had the right box been ticked (and I mean that literally) then everything would have been in order. It was a simple formality and, in this respect, no different from what Sunderland were guilty of.

    While the AFC Wimbledon saga was underway, they were originally docked seventeen points I recall, later reduced to just three, West Ham cheated and lied, quite deliberately, and continued to play Tevez after it was clear that there was a problem with the contractual arrangements involved. The lamentable, yet inexplicably highly regarded Richard Scudamore, would argue that the Premier League followed procedure by which he means that they outsourced a difficult decision to an independent tribunal chaired by a half-witted QC (I thought the role of a CEO was to make tough calls), but the fact is that West Ham should have been docked points. We all know that, but critically, not only did Scudamore get this wrong, and he was responsible, he set a precedent which makes it unlikely that we'll ever see points deducted in the Premier League for rule breaches of this kind.

    I think Red Star Belgrade probably are more "guilty" than Manchester City, but even here it's hard to escape the conclusion that the wealth of the miscreant, it's ability to mount legal action and, critically, the likely damages if successful, makes a very significant difference to the nature of the punishment imposed. Football is out of control, but that's nothing new.
  • Sunderland didn't pick up any points when their player played
    AFC Wimbledon won and their player scored, the points for this win were deducted
    These are the reasons and in this instance it had nothing to do with size of the club.
  • Sunderland didn't pick up any points when their player played
    AFC Wimbledon won and their player scored, the points for this win were deducted
    These are the reasons and in this instance it had nothing to do with size of the club.

    With respect, you're wrong on both counts. Sunderland picked up one point from the games in question. Moreover, even had they won all four matches no points would have been deducted.
  • You're all a bunch of wankers :-)

    No-one can take offence, because I did a smiley.
  • Sunderland didn't pick up any points when their player played
    AFC Wimbledon won and their player scored, the points for this win were deducted
    These are the reasons and in this instance it had nothing to do with size of the club.

    With respect, you're wrong on both counts. Sunderland picked up one point from the games in question. Moreover, even had they won all four matches no points would have been deducted.
    I was forwarding on comments from an afc supporter, I know they won and the player scored. Sunderland, I have little knowledge of the incident but afc fans aren't moaning about the decision

  • They play in different competitions with different organisations so why the surprise they have different rules and punishments?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!