The Clyde FC 2018-19 Thread

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Clydeontheup said:

 

Genuinely hope there is an appeal and the lawyer on the board gets the ridiculous points penalty overturned.

 

It's all in hand.

[Jack Burton]

There's some mental comments in here. There are grown men arguing that Clyde breaking the actual rules of the game (for the second time in 3 years)  is cool because the SFA or SPFL or whoever is unable to deal with other issues. The mental gymnastics are amazing. And most of those comments haven't even came from Clyde fans!
 
Feel a bit for Berwick, but ultimately I'd like the wee rovers to stay up/in existence.

The new rules around loan signings were only brought in at the start of this season. How could we break those rules twice in 3 years?

[Clyde01]

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/08/celtic-reinstated-champions-league-uefa-legia-warsaw

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/sep/02/celtic-europa-league-fc-sion

3-0 seems to be the norm. Remember the Estonia/ Scotland game?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_team_in_Tallinn

Any examples of this in domestic league football? I certainly can’t think of any precedent of reversing results.

Could a team now play a ineligible player deliberately to hand an advantage to an opponent or to disadvantage a rival.

Dock the points fine but don’t reverse the results.

[strichener]

3 hours ago, BinoBalls said:

Out of interest, would people have considered awarding the opposition a 3-0 win fair if, say, the ineligible player had scored 2 goals in a 2-1 victory?? 

Its a massive grey area. Does it matter how many minutes he plays? How well he played? Whether he scored or set up a goal or did any goal line clearances?

I think none of that stuff should matter because it’s a huge can of worms. But I think there needs to be published guidelines so it doesn’t look like punishments are being made up on the spot. Maybe there are already rules on what to do and they’ve been followed, but like others I seriously doubt the same punishment would be handed out to, say, Rangers if they’d made this mistake. 

Or what punishments would have been inflicted if Clyde had lost both games.

[Clydeontheup]

23 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

1 hour ago, Moon said:

There's some mental comments in here. There are grown men arguing that Clyde breaking the actual rules of the game (for the second time in 3 years)  is cool because the SFA or SPFL or whoever is unable to deal with other issues. The mental gymnastics are amazing. And most of those comments haven't even came from Clyde fans!
 
Feel a bit for Berwick, but ultimately I'd like the wee rovers to stay up/in existence.

The new rules around loan signings were only brought in at the start of this season. How could we break those rules twice in 3 years?

We didn’t 

[Disc Potato]

Look at the state of the rules for this.

F Players
Registration and Eligibility
F1 Subject to these Rules and the Player Regulations, to be eligible to Play for a Club a Player must be League Registered with that Club in accordance with these Rules and the Player Regulations.
F2 A breach of or failure to comply with the Player Regulations shall constitute a breach of these Rules.

 

[doulikefish]

2 minutes ago, Disc Potato said:

Look at the state of the rules for this.

F Players
Registration and Eligibility
F1 Subject to these Rules and the Player Regulations, to be eligible to Play for a Club a Player must be League Registered with that Club in accordance with these Rules and the Player Regulations.
F2 A breach of or failure to comply with the Player Regulations shall constitute a breach of these Rules.

 

Not to complicated for most though

[Moon]

42 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

1 hour ago, Moon said:

There's some mental comments in here. There are grown men arguing that Clyde breaking the actual rules of the game (for the second time in 3 years)  is cool because the SFA or SPFL or whoever is unable to deal with other issues. The mental gymnastics are amazing. And most of those comments haven't even came from Clyde fans!
 
Feel a bit for Berwick, but ultimately I'd like the wee rovers to stay up/in existence.

The new rules around loan signings were only brought in at the start of this season. How could we break those rules twice in 3 years?

Tell me where I said you did?  

[Jack Burton]

It was always going to be about the play-offs friend. Sad to see some fans using this is an excuse for losing to Elgin. If your players have genuinely thrown the towel in already you’ve bigger problems ahead of you.

Being docked 4 points was always going to have an effect on their performance yesterday. They've been busting a gut all season and to find out the title challenge was taking out their hands was always going to massively demoralising.

The timing of the announcement wasn't great either . The morning of a long trek for an away game. Wasn't surprised that we lost.

It is a hard working squad we've got and we've got plenty of time and games to get focused for the play offs.

[Chris_the_rover]

I can't remember the results ever being reversed after a case like this, I played in Scotland, England and Germany and ineligible registrations happened all the time. I stand corrected if I'm wrong but usually it's just the points deducted is it not?  Points reversal only ever happened if a club folded  or with serious disciplinary matters. it's either something more serious than an admin mistake or this sets a whole precedent.

Certainly, Id be putting in a n official complaint if it affects the standings at the end of the season

Celtic v legia Warsaw legia win, awarded as 3-0 win to Celtic after legia play ineligible player. player only played a couple mins and Celtic went through on away goals

 

Last season, Albion rovers v Spartans albion rovers win, awarded as 3-0 won for Spartans after rovers play ineligible player. Player was a youth team player who was registered incorrectly (seems to be the same thing here)

 

[PauloPerth]

11 hours ago, SLClyde said:

Said it at the time myself, hearts losing 3 points would’ve put them out and someone else(can’t remember who) through. Picking and choosing their sanctions. 

Inverness were top of the group on 9 points. Hearts were second on 8 points.  

The final group match was between the two at Tynecastle and was scheduled for live coverage by BT Sport.

In the week prior to the game, the authorities decided a 2 point deduction for Hearts was the appropriate punishment for fielding an ineligible player.  That and a fine of £10,000 though £8000 of that was suspended til the following season.  A completely arbitrary punishment which seemed a bit odd considering they gained 3 points for the win in the game where they fielded the unregistered player.  (He came on as a sub after 65 minutes in a 2-1 win at Cove Rangers).

The uncanny thing about it all was that it meant Hearts could still go through on goal difference if they beat Inverness.  Whereas if the normal 3 point deduction had been applied then Hearts were out the competition, and the live BT Sport game would be a dead rubber.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Cowden Cowboy]

Inverness were top of the group on 9 points. Hearts were second on 8 points.  
The final group match was between the two at Tynecastle and was scheduled for live coverage by BT Sport.
In the week prior to the game, the authorities decided a 2 point deduction for Hearts was the appropriate punishment for fielding an ineligible player.  That and a fine of £10,000 though £8000 of that was suspended til the following season.  A completely arbitrary punishment which seemed a bit odd considering they gained 3 points for the win in the game where they fielded the unregistered player.  (He came on as a sub after 65 minutes in a 2-1 win at Cove Rangers).
The uncanny thing about it all was that it meant Hearts could still go through on goal difference if they beat Inverness.  Whereas if the normal 3 point deduction had been applied then Hearts were out the competition, and the live BT Sport game would be a dead rubber.
Nothing to see here, move along.

A 2 point deduction when the max you can achieve is 12 points is more than proportionate when compared to a 3 point deduction out of a possible 108 when you seek to maintain the integrity of a competition.

[HibeeJibee]

Sorry if his has been mentioned but 3 seasons ago Peterhead fielded an ineligible player in SPFL1 - it was ordered replayed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30185429


Have the rules been adjusted since then or is the punishment being left to the discretion of the disciplinary panel?

If the latter that opens a huge can of worms i.e. what if it happened again in SPFL2 this season but that panel instead ordered a fine, replay, 2pts, only deducted the offender, etc.

Edited March 10, 2019 by HibeeJibee

[cowdenbeath]

4 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Sorry if his has been mentioned but 3 seasons ago Peterhead did this in SPFL1 and the game was ordered replayed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30185429


Have the rules been adjusted since then or is the punishment being left to the discretion of the disciplinary panel?

If the latter that opens a huge can of worms i.e. what if it happened again in SPFL2 this season but that panel instead ordered a fine, replay, 2pts, only deducted the offender, etc.

It has long since been mentioned.

[support the underdog]

 

This mistake, which is really a technicality, will cost Clyde a fortune. Last home game- excellent gate over 800 perhaps 300 more than usual. The last six games could have been looking at crowds of 700-1000 if the run in had proved close. Now 400 odd is my guess so perhaps 400 down a game at say £15 average spend a pop over 6 games - possibly £36k lost revenue. Now realistically 3rd or 4th so 3 play-off games to go up, not automatic or just 2 games. So chances of going up greatly reduced.

This punishment must be appealed, as it is totally disproportionate in any reasonable persons view,  but I am afraid those responsible must resign either now or certainly at the end of the season as the consequences are huge. A sad mistake but the damage down is immense.

[HibeeJibee]

1 minute ago, cowdenbeath said:

It has long since been mentioned.

Thanks. Per my comments: did the rules previously specify a replay, and now specify altering the result to a walkover, or is it being left up to the men forming the disciplinary panel each time?

[cowdenbeath]

Just now, HibeeJibee said:

Thanks. Per my comments: did the rules previously specify a replay, and now specify altering the result to a walkover, or is it being left up to the men forming the disciplinary panel each time?

No idea about any rule change. 1st I seem the SPFL awarding 3-0 wins was last season to Stirling Albion in a Reserve League game after Raith Rovers had fielded an ineligible player. Same thing happened to someone else this season can't remember who it was mentioned on here last night.

[Muzza81]

2 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Thanks. Per my comments: did the rules previously specify a replay, and now specify altering the result to a walkover, or is it being left up to the men forming the disciplinary panel each time?

I’d imagine it’s up to the panel.

[peternapper]

16 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Sorry if his has been mentioned but 3 seasons ago Peterhead did this in SPFL1 and the game was ordered replayed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30185429


Have the rules been adjusted since then or is the punishment being left to the discretion of the disciplinary panel?

If the latter that opens a huge can of worms i.e. what if it happened again in SPFL2 this season but that panel instead ordered a fine, replay, 2pts, only deducted the offender, etc.

Was looking at this yesterday, at the time although they would not admit it we were adamant that someone from the club had spoken to someone at Hampden that assured us the player was ok to play, when it all came to light the mystery person suddenly disappeared so we had no option but to accept the ruling although the SFA fine came to £250 which in itself made it look as if they realised they have made a mess of things. Never found out if they took the match ball back off Rory who scored a hattrick in the first game. Would think when dealing with such things now the club would ask for writing conformation. Its unfortunate that this time round it could affect other clubs rather than just the one in the wrong. 

Edited March 10, 2019 by peternapper

[Cowden Cowboy]

 
This mistake, which is really a technicality, will cost Clyde a fortune. Last home game- excellent gate over 800 perhaps 300 more than usual. The last six games could have been looking at crowds of 700-1000 if the run in had proved close. Now 400 odd is my guess so perhaps 400 down a game at say £15 average spend a pop over 6 games - possibly £36k lost revenue. Now realistically 3rd or 4th so 3 play-off games to go up, not automatic or just 2 games. So chances of going up greatly reduced.
This punishment must be appealed, as it is totally disproportionate in any reasonable persons view,  but I am afraid those responsible must resign either now or certainly at the end of the season as the consequences are huge. A sad mistake but the damage down is immense.

It really isn't a technicality - fielding an ineligible player has always been a significant offence