Clyde01 Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 That said, what WOULD the correct sanction be? No one seems to have settled upon one which they'd consider fair and just to all sides involved.At the very least I would be hoping for a points deduction only, not a results reversal. Whilst not a big win for us that would leave us +6 better off in GD with the top 2 still to play. (This outcome has more of an impact at the bottom of the table).They could also reduce or suspend the points deduction. The severity of the punishment doesn’t fit the crime in my opinion. It’s also highly unclear (not to mention irregular) as to why hearts were penalised they way they were earlier in the season. Maybe we could be deducted 1 point per game (as hearts were). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueone Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 So, Clyde could potentionally get 10 points within a week by beating us and Edinburgh and getting 4 points back. They would then be clear at the top. Can Peterhead, Edinburgh and Albion Rovers (if required) then appeal against the appeal, followed by Clyde appealing again (if required) etc, etc. Clexit? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydney Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 22 minutes ago, blueone said: So, Clyde could potentionally get 10 points within a week by beating us and Edinburgh and getting 4 points back. They would then be clear at the top. Can Peterhead, Edinburgh and Albion Rovers (if required) then appeal against the appeal, followed by Clyde appealing again (if required) etc, etc. Clexit? It’s not going to happen so I don’t think you’ve anything to worry yourself about. SFA are not going to change the decision. Just can’t see it happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Sark Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 48 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said: That said, what WOULD the correct sanction be? No one seems to have settled upon one which they'd consider fair and just to all sides involved. Points deduction only. We'd have a better GD and be fairer on the other teams affected. I'm interested in where the "3-0" comes from in game forfeits. Seems like a random scoreline. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Officer Barbrady Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 27 minutes ago, Clyde01 said: At the very least I would be hoping for a points deduction only, not a results reversal. Whilst not a big win for us that would leave us +6 better off in GD with the top 2 still to play. (This outcome has more of an impact at the bottom of the table). They could also reduce or suspend the points deduction. The severity of the punishment doesn’t fit the crime in my opinion. It’s also highly unclear (not to mention irregular) as to why hearts were penalised they way they were earlier in the season. Maybe we could be deducted 1 point per game (as hearts were). The deduction in itself is within the bounds of reason. We broke the rules. The twists of irony in the story- DF being an "advantage" in the first place in the absence of DG, injured at Berwick, who then end up also punished via the recycling of the match points- in my opinion render the punishment to be probably about right. We'd certainly be clamouring for it if it were our rivals. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Officer Barbrady Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Cutty Sark said: Points deduction only. We'd have a better GD and be fairer on the other teams affected. I'm interested in where the "3-0" comes from in game forfeits. Seems like a random scoreline. I suspect this comes from the Uefa/Fifa handbook under "walkover" status. We listed a faulty teamsheet, therefore the match never took place. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulstrode Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 My understanding of our appeal is based on the SPFL failing to check the legitimacy of the submitted team lines after the game v ARFC.The SFA may agree that this oversight could've prevented Fitzpatrick from bring selected v QPFC with the outcome that we're awarded a point and the result of that game would stand.In the grand scheme of things it wouldn't impact greatly on QPFC but would affect ARFC if we won the entire appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 22 hours ago, Officer Barbrady said: Highly ironic that Peterhead were handed the most lenient punishment, in light of the crown-of-thorns attitude many of our fans have taken over treatement of the "wee teams". Given these have all occurred under the SPFL guidelines, it appears each decision is met on a case-by-case basis. I very much doubt that at the outset of forming a league, adopting a one-size deduction or embargo is something the organisers think they'll be required to have to rule upon very much. That said, what WOULD the correct sanction be? No one seems to have settled upon one which they'd consider fair and just to all sides involved. The Peterhead punishment was on the back of a cock-up in the suspension list published by the beaks and the club confirming the player's eligibility prior to the match. After all this, it was then determined that we had played a suspended player! If there was any justice in the world, we would have been given 6 points for the farce rather than being ordered to replay the game and subsequently getting two points less than the original result. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Officer Barbrady Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, strichener said: The Peterhead punishment was on the back of a cock-up in the suspension list published by the beaks and the club confirming the player's eligibility prior to the match. After all this, it was then determined that we had played a suspended player! If there was any justice in the world, we would have been given 6 points for the farce rather than being ordered to replay the game and subsequently getting two points less than the original result. And therein lies the reason why we simply can't ask, with a straight face, for the matches to be replayed as we'd likely win both with Goodie in the side, thus gaining both points and additional income from an extra match. I think we're having ourselves on here, almost making the appeal reek of pure effort, when all that was ever required was the straighforward, no-fuss delve into the workings of a transfer window. At the very best, if i myself were in the dock, i'd plead for clemency and starting next season on -4 points whichever division we'd be in, whilst removing 2 from QP and 3 from Rovers, along with the malajusted goals columns, as the latter two awards have seriously mongrelised the league table. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peternapper Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Seem to remember at the time SFA/SPFL saying it was up to clubs to monitor suspensions & the like even although they were in charge of handing out punishments so cannot see why when rules are set out they would not expect clubs to follow them 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, sydney said: It’s not going to happen so I don’t think you’ve anything to worry yourself about. SFA are not going to change the decision. Just can’t see it happening. SPFL decision not SFA - edited, apologies - original decision made by SPFL, appeal via SFA Judicial Panel. 23 hours ago, Bulstrode said: My understanding of our appeal is based on the SPFL failing to check the legitimacy of the submitted team lines after the game v ARFC. Referee submits teamlines to SFA who are responsible for registrations. In turn the SFA would have informed the SPFL of the ineligible player. Edited April 1, 2019 by The Phoenix 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwoodBoy Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Just give us the points back. Fitzpatrick was honking so if anything made it harder for Clyde to win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Clyde FC Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 1 hour ago, BroadwoodBoy said: Just give us the points back. Fitzpatrick was honking so if anything made it harder for Clyde to win. Maybees we should have stuck 2nd top goal scorer McNiff in the #9 shirt anyway? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Burton Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Maybees we should have stuck 2nd top goal scorer McNiff in the #9 shirt anyway?That's what makes the situation even worse. We could have stuck anyone of the other central defenders up front and got the same results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfcuk Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 interesting to see what the fans think the punishment should/ could have been I thought hefty fine and replay the games , but I'm biased. It would be interesting to see the reasoning behind the ruling as said can only be on the basis of us forfeiting the matchs hence 3 0 result I don't think we have a hope of a reversal of the ruling by the Spfl but you never know stranger things have happened I presume the rationale of the club or it's simply to take the heat off the club for a basic error and deflect the blame onto the SFA . It all becomes pretty academic unless we get to within 3 points off the top The players and management have been fantastic wining 4 on the bounce since being told of the points deduction on the morning of a trip to Elgin . well done lads [emoji122] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzza81 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 How can any sane fan think replaying a game that you didn’t win when you played an ineligible player in would be a fair outcome is beyond me. Football fans are a different breed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the bigger picture Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, peternapper said: Seem to remember at the time SFA/SPFL saying it was up to clubs to monitor suspensions & the like even although they were in charge of handing out punishments so cannot see why when rules are set out they would not expect clubs to follow them It is incumbent on the ruling body to check team lines in a timely manner. Clyde admitted the mistake which seems to have arisen due to the change in how Junior and Senior players are treated in respect of the transfer window. Had Clyde signed Messi, played him under an assumed name and he scored a hat-trick in each game the punishment would fit the crime; but he was an untried centre half playing in a the junior leagues whose parent club was Clyde and was played as a makeshift centre forward. He also scored nada goals. It seems if you are in a certain league under SPFL your punishment is different, had Hearts been fined, had all 3 points deducted and a 3-0 walkover given to Cove then there was the possibility that they would not have qualified from that group. What's the missing element in the above..... money pure and simple, or to be more specific keeping the cup sponsor happy. god forgive we have cup shocks like down south..... that would never promote the game in Scotland. Easier to punish Peterhead, Clyde and Bogstandard Boys Club and look as if you are strict legislators of the game........ the classic politicians smoke & mirrors Edited April 1, 2019 by the bigger picture 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Officer Barbrady Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, the bigger picture said: . He also scored nada goals. One assist, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Clyde FC Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 IF and only if, after the rule regarding re-calling a loanee had changed and it was tucked away in a sea of SFA guff AND we had checked Fitzpatrick's eligibility with SPFL/ SFA, we could have a decent claim. If this wasn't the case I think we're snookered. However we might get away with repeating the same mistake twice is not the same as committing 2 offenses. So, as someone else said, maybe we forfeit the AR game and get a point back from QP game...net result were still screwed. Still seems unfair on Berwick imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfcuk Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 How can any sane fan think replaying a game that you didn’t win when you played an ineligible player in would be a fair outcome is beyond me. Football fans are a different breed. I did say I was biased [emoji23] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.0f22cbd69b64158ca718c66b4e426366.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.