|
|
Post by Sparky on Mar 18, 2011 16:49:34 GMT 1
|
|
neo
Full Member
Posts: 225
|
Post by neo on Mar 18, 2011 17:32:57 GMT 1
This was the game that Nathen Haisley made his surprise return, perhaps there was a problem with his registration not being completed in time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 18:12:57 GMT 1
It relates to the home game with Leamington when we picked up a point
I suspect it is a good job that Mitchell Bryant in the end did not play for us at Weymouth as we would probably have lost those three points as well
I do not know the story of what went wrong though
|
|
|
|
Post by marka on Mar 18, 2011 23:46:19 GMT 1
Oh deary deary me.....we really could do without this...time to close ranks and fight our way out of the position we find ourselves in. Lets hope some games go our way tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Mar 20, 2011 21:39:21 GMT 1
I don't know what's more worrying,the deduction of a point,or the fact no one seems to give a toss.The apathy that surrounds the club this season makes me fear for the future.If we go down we wont be back any time soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Mar 21, 2011 19:55:40 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Mar 21, 2011 20:27:29 GMT 1
There were all kinds of comings and goings at the time – Sharif's loan had just ended and there were several injuries. Four new signings turned out that day, including Bryant – and it was his only appearance. The club seemed unusually keen to get him, despite the difficulties surrounding the signing and the fact that it appeared that he was keen to go elsewhere.
Is it an embarrassed silence or is the club disputing the deduction but keeping quiet until the matter is settled?
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Mar 21, 2011 22:38:50 GMT 1
I'M not so much castigating the secretary,we all make errors(if indeed we have),it's the fact that only 4 or 5 of us can be arsed to comment on a point lost which could send us the wilderness of Woodford,Barton and Leighton next year..see how many will pay £9 to watch them crowd pullers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2011 8:48:27 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Mar 22, 2011 11:19:40 GMT 1
So, no embarrassment for the club at all. Like the Milner case, the fault lies with other agents and not with the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 22, 2011 11:38:42 GMT 1
I do not know the detail of the Milner case but the information as presented here does not show the Bryant family in good light - very disappointing and hopefully he will repay us and also score some goals against our relegation rivals if he is still at Swindon.
Sadly a club is only as strong as the sum of its parts and your success or otherwise is determined by what the players you select do on (and sometimes) off the field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2011 12:47:23 GMT 1
It's rather frightening how draconian the penalties are
If Bryant had played for us for a lot longer we could have lost all points since December - in effect confirming our relegation!
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Mar 22, 2011 13:17:40 GMT 1
I do not know the details of the Milner case... While playing for Brackley in the Hellenic, Ben Milner was given a suspension for bookings picked up near the end of the 2000-01 season. The suspension was to be served at the start of the following season. Banbury did not receive any papers in respect of this from the Southern League, Northamptonshire FA, Brackley or Milner prior to the start of the season and Milner played for Banbury in two games that he shouldn't have, a league fixture against Corby on the Bank Holiday Monday (score 1-1) and the FA Cup preliminary round tie against Ware on the following Saturday (4-0 to Banbury). Ten days later, the Brackley secretary ran Barry W to tell him that he had received a phone call from the Ware secretary (who had received an anonymous tip-off) asking if Milner was serving a suspension at the time of the FA Cup tie. Barry contacted the Northamptonshire FA and received a copy of the suspension notice, apparently signed by Milner but with a signature not recognisable as his; Milner said he had not signed a suspension notice. At no time was any blame apportioned to the Brackley secretary or Milner but someone unknown set this up. Why? Banbury had approached Milner during the previous season but he said he would honour his contract at Brackley, which he did; Brackley were in the running for the HL title and a return to the SL. In the end, they finished second by 8 points to Supermarine, who were promoted. Someone didn't like the idea of losing Milner to Banbury of all clubs. Banbury had to return the £1,000 winnings and were removed from the competition; they also had a point docked. This was the season when the prize money was greater than it is now; had Banbury won through to the first round, they would have pocketed £46,000. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 22, 2011 16:37:13 GMT 1
It's rather frightening how draconian the penalties are If Bryant had played for us for a lot longer we could have lost all points since December - in effect confirming our relegation! I think this is an issue as once the "misdemeanor" has been made then it is in the hands of the regulatory authorities to find it out and luckily this one was fairly prompt. Oxford suffered because of this a couple of seasons ago. You really only should be penalised once for one offence which I think this was. However if for example you have knowingly played a player who was ineligible over a number of games then that is where more serious penalties should apply. |
|
