The Clyde FC 2018-19 Thread

[nickCFC58]

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?

Did Peterhead not get to replay a game a few years back for a similar crime? Should surely be the same for us. Would rather that than getting the 4 back tbh, means we could get all 6 [emoji16]

[scot-gcar709]

Being perfectly honest, i  don't see there is any chance of the SFA overturning this decision although i do think it was the worst punishment in terms of what happened in the league. I also don't see them replaying the games as that could cause us to end up with more points than we got in the first place. IMO the fairest punishment would have been a points deduction from the start of next season but as i said at this point i don't see the SFA changing it.

[Muzza81]

12 minutes ago, scot-gcar709 said:

Being perfectly honest, i  don't see there is any chance of the SFA overturning this decision although i do think it was the worst punishment in terms of what happened in the league. I also don't see them replaying the games as that could cause us to end up with more points than we got in the first place. IMO the fairest punishment would have been a points deduction from the start of next season but as i said at this point i don't see the SFA changing it.

What another absurd shout. How on earth would deducting you points from next season make any sort of sense when the offence happened this season?  If you had said simply deducting you points this season it wouldn’t have been so ridiculous but to suggest next season is wild.

[Pride Of The Clyde]

On 31 March 2019 at 11:05, Bully Wee Clyde FC said:

I think I read that Berwick had launched a complaint too. I get their argument if it is that AR were the beneficiaries of a decision that was meant to be about penalising Clyde. Harper of AR says we should just take our medicine.

There would be something rotten if playing our own player in ignorance (or stupidity) and this impacted on both ends of the league. 

Off the ball also raised the question last night that the pyramid system referred to only the highland and lowland league...Berwick are in England and wouldn't automatically be accepted into Lowland league so where would they 

I think we should hold our hands up and accept the QP game sanction as we made the error but I believe the AR game should be replayed as SPL/ SFA also made an error in not informing us of the breach straight away and not waited until we had played another match, probably won't happen as they will not accept any responsibility for their error.

[sydney]

I think the best we can expect is the points deduction but without the goal reverse. In other words, the 3-0 victories arent awarded to AR and QP. The goal reverse could in the end be as good as another point down IF we manage to beat Peterhead and Edinburgh in the next two games. 

 

[sydney]

12 minutes ago, Pride Of The Clyde said:

I think we should hold our hands up and accept the QP game sanction as we made the error but I believe the AR game should be replayed as SPL/ SFA also made an error in not informing us of the breach straight away and not waited until we had played another match, probably won't happen as they will not accept any responsibility for their error.

The AR game was before the QP game so that doesn’t work. If that’s the club’s argument then it’s only the QP game that’s relevant and they’d never allow that to be replayed as we could win it. 

[Muzza81]

3 minutes ago, sydney said:

I think the best we can expect is the points deduction but without the goal reverse. In other words, the 3-0 victories arent awarded to AR and QP. The goal reverse could in the end be as good as another point down IF we manage to beat Peterhead and Edinburgh in the next two games. 

This is about right. The only issue I have with this is if you lost both games there would be no punishment so it doesn’t exactly set a precedent - not that the leagues are keen on that anyway. 

[scot-gcar709]

1 hour ago, Muzza81 said:

What another absurd shout. How on earth would deducting you points from next season make any sort of sense when the offence happened this season?  If you had said simply deducting you points this season it wouldn’t have been so ridiculous but to suggest next season is wild.

Why? the only reason this punishment is seen as being in any way meaningful is down to the fact we were challenging for the league. If this had happened if we were mid table towards the end of the season it could have meant nothing. At least by applying a consistent point deduction at the start of the following season the team that broke the rule is faced with some kind of disadvantage. At the end of the day if the SFA either uphold the current decision or just deduct the points from us then fine but i still believe there needs to be a penalty that will punish any team that makes these mistakes in the future in a consistent way.

[Jaggy Snake]

Hasn’t all this been covered enough by now?

I had no problem with the original punishment, and not only do I think it won’t change, I can’t see why it should. It was the club’s mistake and they take the sole blame, not the SPFL because some people think the punishment is harsh. I’m sure the change of rule regarding loan players had even been mentioned on P&B earlier this season, at least a couple of times, so there’s no excuse for the club not knowing.

The argument that the club could have been informed in between the Rovers & Queen’s Park games is an extremely thin one, as it remains the clubs responsibility to submit a valid teamsheet, and QP still had to play against a player they shouldn’t have. The quality of that player, and their impact on the game, are entirely irrelevant.

As has been covered, the Peterhead situation was different as they had spoken with the SFA and been told the player was eligible, only for the SFA to latterly change their mind. A replay in that case was the only sensible solution. I'm sure we'd have heard by now if Clyde were in a similar situation so that seems highly unlikely.

We all know Hearts punishment in the League Cup was the incorrect one, and done only because of their upcoming TV game, but does that mean every club from now to eternity should get lighter punishments because of one (disgraceful) incident? Not to mention that the Hearts issue occurred in a different competition, and presumably they broke a different rule (or at least subsection) given ours was a new infringement specifically regarding loan players & transfer windows/timings.

The only way the games would be replayed would be for us to be deducted 6 points, and therefore have to win both in order to get back to our current total. That however would risk Queen’s Park losing their original point earned, and if Rovers lost by more than a goal worsening their goal difference, so still wouldn’t be a fair resolution.

There’s even an argument that the punishment wasn’t harsh enough. What if we’d lost both games 3-0 in real life, with Fitzpatrick playing? There would then be no result to be reversed, and we didn’t technically have any points deducted, so the only punishment would have been a very small fine. The actual decision really makes no sense (as Muzza just pointed out), as the same punishment couldn’t necessarily be used for clubs in the future if they’d lost the matches in question.

Obviously, if we get anything back (points or goal difference) from the appeal I will be happy enough as it strengthens our promotion chase. However, I am not expecting it and don’t think we actually deserve anything back either. What I do care about is that the team have done brilliantly to grind out results in the last couple of weeks, without necessarily playing all that well, and the fact we still have an outside shot at the title, even after this debacle, is fantastic.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Jaggy Snake

[cfcuk]

Hasn’t all this been covered enough by now?

I had no problem with the original punishment, and not only do I think it won’t change, I can’t see why it should. It was the club’s mistake and they take the sole blame, not the SPFL because some people think the punishment is harsh. I’m sure the change of rule regarding loan players had even been mentioned on P&B earlier this season, at least a couple of times, so there’s no excuse for the club not knowing.

The argument that the club could have been informed in between the Rovers & Queen’s Park games is an extremely thin one, as it remains the clubs responsibility to submit a valid teamsheet, and QP still had to play against a player they shouldn’t have. The quality of that player, and their impact on the game, are entirely irrelevant.

As has been covered, the Peterhead situation was different as they had spoken with the SFA and been told the player was eligible, only for the SFA to latterly change their mind. A replay in that case was the only sensible solution. I'm sure we'd have heard by now if Clyde were in a similar situation so that seems highly unlikely.

We all know Hearts punishment in the League Cup was the incorrect one, and done only because of their upcoming TV game, but does that mean every club from now to eternity should get lighter punishments because of one (disgraceful) incident? Not to mention that the Hearts issue occurred in a different competition, and presumably they broke a different rule (or at least subsection) given ours was a new infringement specifically regarding loan players & transfer windows/timings.

The only way the games would be replayed would be for us to be deducted 6 points, and therefore have to win both in order to get back to our current total. That however would risk Queen’s Park losing their original point earned, and if Rovers lost by more than a goal worsening their goal difference, so still wouldn’t be a fair resolution.

There’s even an argument that the punishment wasn’t harsh enough. What if we’d lost both games 3-0 in real life, with Fitzpatrick playing? There would then be no result to be reversed, and we didn’t technically have any points deducted, so the only punishment would have been a very small fine. The actual decision really makes no sense (as Muzza just pointed out) as the same punishment couldn’t necessarily be used for clubs in the future if they’d lost the matches in question.

Obviously, if we get anything back (points or goal difference) from the appeal I will be happy enough as it strengthens our promotion chase. However, I am not expecting it and don’t think we actually deserve anything back either. What I do care about is that the team have done brilliantly to grind out results in the last couple of weeks, without necessarily playing all that well, and the fact we still have an outside shot at the title even after this debacle is fantastic.

take a bow Jaggy [emoji122]

 

without doubt the most sensible post on this whole issue and at last someone has approached this with integrity . That my friend should have been the club statement on this debacle.

 

[BroadwoodBoy]

Lets just hope nobody involved with the appeal reads these forums. The club must have good grounds for the appeal otherwise why bother with it seen as all the expert defeatists on here have accepted our points being taken off us. Baffling. 

I'll have all my fingers & toes crossed come next Friday hoping & praying for a positive outcome as it will have a major say in who wins this league but for most of the posters on here i'm not so sure...

 

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

1 hour ago, Jaggy Snake said:

Hasn’t all this been covered enough by now?

I had no problem with the original punishment, and not only do I think it won’t change, I can’t see why it should. It was the club’s mistake and they take the sole blame, not the SPFL because some people think the punishment is harsh. I’m sure the change of rule regarding loan players had even been mentioned on P&B earlier this season, at least a couple of times, so there’s no excuse for the club not knowing.

The argument that the club could have been informed in between the Rovers & Queen’s Park games is an extremely thin one, as it remains the clubs responsibility to submit a valid teamsheet, and QP still had to play against a player they shouldn’t have. The quality of that player, and their impact on the game, are entirely irrelevant.

As has been covered, the Peterhead situation was different as they had spoken with the SFA and been told the player was eligible, only for the SFA to latterly change their mind. A replay in that case was the only sensible solution. I'm sure we'd have heard by now if Clyde were in a similar situation so that seems highly unlikely.

We all know Hearts punishment in the League Cup was the incorrect one, and done only because of their upcoming TV game, but does that mean every club from now to eternity should get lighter punishments because of one (disgraceful) incident? Not to mention that the Hearts issue occurred in a different competition, and presumably they broke a different rule (or at least subsection) given ours was a new infringement specifically regarding loan players & transfer windows/timings.

The only way the games would be replayed would be for us to be deducted 6 points, and therefore have to win both in order to get back to our current total. That however would risk Queen’s Park losing their original point earned, and if Rovers lost by more than a goal worsening their goal difference, so still wouldn’t be a fair resolution.

There’s even an argument that the punishment wasn’t harsh enough. What if we’d lost both games 3-0 in real life, with Fitzpatrick playing? There would then be no result to be reversed, and we didn’t technically have any points deducted, so the only punishment would have been a very small fine. The actual decision really makes no sense (as Muzza just pointed out), as the same punishment couldn’t necessarily be used for clubs in the future if they’d lost the matches in question.

Obviously, if we get anything back (points or goal difference) from the appeal I will be happy enough as it strengthens our promotion chase. However, I am not expecting it and don’t think we actually deserve anything back either. What I do care about is that the team have done brilliantly to grind out results in the last couple of weeks, without necessarily playing all that well, and the fact we still have an outside shot at the title, even after this debacle, is fantastic.

Assuming I agree with the fact it is the club's mistake then that is where the punishment should be focused. However, there is an argument that he points deduction harms the players and supporters much more than anyone else, and they had and have no control over administration. That part of it is what people will view as 'unfair'. It may be one of the few options open to the authorities, but that does not make it palatable to fans, players & staff - the latter two whose earnings may be impacted.

[doulikefish]

Not forgetting its a 2nd offence [emoji6]

[Officer Barbrady]

1 hour ago, BroadwoodBoy said:

Lets just hope nobody involved with the appeal reads these forums. The club must have good grounds for the appeal otherwise why bother with it seen as all the expert defeatists on here have accepted our points being taken off us. Baffling. 

I'll have all my fingers & toes crossed come next Friday hoping & praying for a positive outcome as it will have a major say in who wins this league but for most of the posters on here i'm not so sure...

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DzeRQD0tK8h0&ved=2ahUKEwjPtfnDn7HhAhWBtXEKHcVkCQoQwqsBMAB6BAgFEAU&usg=AOvVaw2Lp6SX1HDtq-Ge9eGhvi7k&cshid=1554202532315

 

 

[Officer Barbrady]

Just now, Officer Barbrady said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DzeRQD0tK8h0&ved=2ahUKEwjPtfnDn7HhAhWBtXEKHcVkCQoQwqsBMAB6BAgFEAU&usg=AOvVaw2Lp6SX1HDtq-Ge9eGhvi7k&cshid=1554202532315

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BroadwoodBoy said:

Lets just hope nobody involved with the appeal reads these forums. The club must have good grounds for the appeal otherwise why bother with it seen as all the expert defeatists on here have accepted our points being taken off us. Baffling. 

I'll have all my fingers & toes crossed come next Friday hoping & praying for a positive outcome as it will have a major say in who wins this league but for most of the posters on here i'm not so sure...

 

 

Is this the strength of the "positive" energy, then? 

 

Coupled with the apparent policing of emotions that you feel is needed at the game on Saturday, coupled with your own personal hatred towards an individual in the team which i found is quite a cancer among the support on Saturday- how does that stack up with the Three Blind Mice method of supporting the team/club?

[BroadwoodBoy]

5 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

Coupled with the apparent policing of emotions that you feel is needed at the game on Saturday, coupled with your own personal hatred towards an individual in the team which i found is quite a cancer among the support on Saturday

What are you talking about?

What was "quite a cancer among the support on saturday"?

[Officer Barbrady]

5 minutes ago, BroadwoodBoy said:

What are you talking about?

What was "quite a cancer among the support on saturday"?

If you need to ask, it doesn't matter. Really it doesn't.  

[haufdaft]

As has been covered, the Peterhead situation was different as they had spoken with the SFA and been told the player was eligible, only for the SFA to latterly change their mind. A replay in that case was the only sensible solution.

JS, I agree with most of your post apart from the section above.

If the rule is that responsibility for ensuring eligibility falls entirely on the club, it should not matter a jot what the SFA told Peterhead.

I can't see the decision being overturned.

I do think it is a nonsense that there isn't software provided by the SFA/SPFL to feedback eligibility of players to clubs before they are selected for a match.

I'm sure any decent software company could produce such a thing relatively cheaply.

It seems daft to me that a regulatory organisation worth millions puts responsibility onto part time volunteers at clubs but are happy to spunk away millions over the years on other failed projects.

[Mantis Toboggan]

3 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

I do think it is a nonsense that there isn't software provided by the SFA/SPFL to feedback eligibility of players to clubs before they are selected for a match.

I think the Highland League has this already

[Bullyme]

There has always been a split in the clyde support. Can someone tell me why