|
Post by trevor on Nov 22, 2017 7:48:36 GMT 1
Maybe the costs for the postponed game could be taken before splitting the profits. Re the comments, I support Banbury and mistook the remarks that their could be trouble, if that’s the case many like me will stay away, we should do our talking on the pitch not act like morons
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Nov 22, 2017 7:56:14 GMT 1
Also means we will now have to play them midweek away We did anyway, irrespective of this mess.
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Nov 22, 2017 11:10:06 GMT 1
Did you mean to say something, Trevor? You haven't added anything to the quoted messages.
|
|
|
Post by spiritof86 on Nov 22, 2017 12:24:26 GMT 1
Did you mean to say something, Trevor? You haven't added anything to the quoted messages. lost for words !
|
|
|
Post by spiritof86 on Nov 22, 2017 12:25:59 GMT 1
Maybe the costs for the postponed game could be taken before splitting the profits. Re the comments, I support Banbury and mistook the remarks that their could be trouble, if that’s the case many like me will stay away, we should do our talking on the pitch not act like morons Don't fear Trevor there won't be any trouble .
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Nov 22, 2017 14:57:57 GMT 1
Given that the attendance in the first leg was only 269 with probably 50+ from Banbury I can't see them bringing many anyway let alone any that might want to cause trouble, think this might be getting a little over hyped as a result of the stitch up last week.
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Nov 23, 2017 12:34:22 GMT 1
|
|
craig
Full Member
Posts: 174
|
Post by craig on Nov 23, 2017 13:05:45 GMT 1
Hold the front page! The BG expresses an opinion: I get the feeling the guardian will be a lot more positive towards us now Phil has taken over the chairman's seat
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Nov 23, 2017 13:56:01 GMT 1
Hold the front page! The BG expresses an opinion: I get the feeling the guardian will be a lot more positive towards us now Phil has taken over the chairman's seat Nearly fell over when I read the headlines and editorial😨😨😨
|
|
|
Post by farnboroughfcfan on Nov 23, 2017 22:41:35 GMT 1
Hi all, A Farnborough FC fan in peace here For the record, although we recieved no fine as such, we were punished by the fact that we will receive no expenses (circa £700) and no share of gate (circa £500-£750). So effectively a “fine” of around £1200-£1450. I would also like to wish Banbury United FC all the best for the remainder of the season. Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Nov 23, 2017 23:50:36 GMT 1
For the record, although we recieved no fine as such, we were punished by the fact that we will receive no expenses (circa £700) and no share of gate (circa £500-£750). So effectively a “fine” of around £1200-£1450. It was noted on here as a fairly stiff sanction.
|
|
|
Post by Keith R. on Nov 24, 2017 18:00:23 GMT 1
For the record, although we recieved no fine as such, we were punished by the fact that we will receive no expenses (circa £700) and no share of gate (circa £500-£750). So effectively a “fine” of around £1200-£1450. It was noted on here as a fairly stiff sanction. So Farnborough get out of a mid week replay,game switched to a Saturday,11 days after the original game should have been played which gives them time to get injured players back and even sign new players, then if Farnbourough were to win the game they will recieve £4000 in prize money,so effectively a "fine" of around £1450 leaves Farnborough a profit of £2550,it would only effectively be a fine if they lose!,however you dress this up they have got off lightly and B.U.F.C. has been harshly treated!
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Nov 24, 2017 19:28:12 GMT 1
Keith, don't interpret my remark as demonstrating sympathy towards Farnborough. I made this point earlier in the thread: "Curious. Farnborough are not guilty because of circumstances but have effectively been fined, perhaps about £1,500 if we assume an attendance of around 300, and the fine is received by Banbury, not the FA." In other words, the FA took a serious view of their failure to turn up – and rightly so.
And nor could Farnborough sign new players because the ruling specifically stated that only those eligible for the first (drawn) match could play in the delayed replay.
I raised the subject of the 'fine' again (in answer to the Farnborough fan) because this appeared on the Farnborough forum on Tuesday: "Also just to add, farnborough didn't actually get off Scott free. It was said that we wouldn't recieve any travel expenses or any share of gate receipts in the replay , so that has cost the club in the region of upto £1500-£2000 , didn't see that advertised on the Banbury statement or Banbury forum that was announced by them" It was posted in ignorance of the fact that several hours earlier Shadders had put the letter with the ruling on the official site and Didier and I had commented on here about the penalty. It deserved a correction and it got one.
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Nov 24, 2017 21:02:39 GMT 1
Think it is now time to end all the recriminations over this whole affair as distasteful as it has been for us, it is up to us now to get behind the team tomorrow and ensure we get the right result.
|
|
|
Post by liamr on Nov 24, 2017 21:47:02 GMT 1
A look at the latest post on the farnborough forum might get the blood boiling again tho...
Traffic-gate part 2?!?!
|
|