🔵 🔴 Inverness CT v The Gl£$ga Gr€tna 🕷🕷

[bdu98196]

Well it'll be a 'Tainted Trophy' this season for the eventual winners if the SFA don't take the correct path of action, not even sure anyone should be as bold to call it a legitimate claim to be holders if we are going to allow clubs to cheat others out of the competition.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

2 hours ago, bdu98196 said:

Well it'll be a 'Tainted Trophy' this season for the eventual winners if the SFA don't take the correct path of action, not even sure anyone should be as bold to call it a legitimate claim to be holders if we are going to allow clubs to cheat others out of the competition.

Maybe you’ll get back, soon, to coping with the fact you were well beat and will be again this season. Ultimately the SFA decide. It’s their competition, their choice.

[Skyline Drifter]

5 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

My take on it is the small print at the bottom of section 12 (asterisk) refers you to section 11 which as I mentioned earlier deals with the punishment. This infers 11 is Superior. The bullet point list starts with censure and fines, gravitates to match replays and ends up with the full bhoona. So it could be as soft as a censure all the way up to a £100k fine and out the cup. As ridiculous as it seems, there are people around the club who could negotiate the former and others around the club who could negotiate the latter. I’m unclear if ICT are allowed their opinion on this? 

Jeez, small print!

There's absolutely no doubt, you're getting thrown out of the cup for this. Stop kidding yourself on otherwise. That's what the rule says and it's what has happened to all of the other clubs who have made the same mistake since the rule was introduced after Dunfermline somehow winning an appeal. The small print is around for exceptional extenuating circumstances. You've been formally charged so the facts aren't at issue. It's a formality.

ICT are not allowed an opinion. It's a matter of fact.

[TxRover]

6 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Jeez, small print!

There's absolutely no doubt, you're getting thrown out of the cup for this. Stop kidding yourself on otherwise. That's what the rule says and it's what has happened to all of the other clubs who have made the same mistake since the rule was introduced after Dunfermline somehow winning an appeal. The small print is around for exceptional extenuating circumstances. You've been formally charged so the facts aren't at issue. It's a formality.

ICT are not allowed an opinion. It's a matter of fact.

I’m just wondering if it’ll be adjudged careless or reckless, I just can’t see intentional here. Do you recall if any of the previous situations resulted in financial penalty in addition to ejection?

[sophia]

8 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Maybe you’ll get back, soon, to coping with the fact you were well beat and will be again this season. Ultimately the SFA decide. It’s their competition, their choice.

If Queens Park dodge this, the cup will be a tainted, hollow sham

[bdu98196]

9 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Maybe you’ll get back, soon, to coping with the fact you were well beat and will be again this season.

[ICTChris]

I honestly thought that this would end up being fudged by the SFA and Queens Park would get a fine until I saw the post above by @Skyline Drifter. He’s probably the poster I’d trust most on matters relating to football club admin.

[HibeeJibee]

Been invariable for a decade and more that such offences cause ejection where club is at fault (i.e. no SFA error). 2010 AGM:

However, the SFA passed a resolution at their AGM in May automatically expelling clubs who field ineligible players in the competition. The move was prompted by Dunfermline's successful appeal against their expulsion last season for breaching four rules surrounding their team lines during their fourth-round win over Stenhousemuir, including fielding the suspended Callum Woods.

SFA president George Peat explained the rationale behind the rule change in May. "We have brought in this rule so that there is no dubiety in the future," Peat said. "There are no grey areas at all."

e.g.

2010-11     East Stirlingshire fielded ineligible player     ejected and Buckie reinstated
2011-12     Spartans fielded ineligible player     ejected and Culter reinstated
2022-23     Banks o'Dee fielded ineligible player     ejected and Turriff reinstated

If that's the case here it'd be extraordinary if QP could "buy" their way out of it.

Edited February 2, 2023 by HibeeJibee

[spiders4ever]

18 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Been invariable for a decade and more that such offences cause ejection where club is at fault (i.e. no SFA error). 2010 AGM:

However, the SFA passed a resolution at their AGM in May automatically expelling clubs who field ineligible players in the competition. The move was prompted by Dunfermline's successful appeal against their expulsion last season for breaching four rules surrounding their team lines during their fourth-round win over Stenhousemuir, including fielding the suspended Callum Woods.

SFA president George Peat explained the rationale behind the rule change in May. "We have brought in this rule so that there is no dubiety in the future," Peat said. "There are no grey areas at all."

e.g.

2010-11     East Stirlingshire fielded ineligible player     ejected and Buckie reinstated
2011-12     Spartans fielded ineligible player     ejected and Culter reinstated
2022-23     Banks o'Dee fielded ineligible player     ejected and Turriff reinstated

If that's the case here it'd be extraordinary if QP could "buy" their way out of it.

It would be but there is the Sevco defence.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

1 hour ago, HibeeJibee said:

Been invariable for a decade and more that such offences cause ejection where club is at fault (i.e. no SFA error). 2010 AGM:

However, the SFA passed a resolution at their AGM in May automatically expelling clubs who field ineligible players in the competition. The move was prompted by Dunfermline's successful appeal against their expulsion last season for breaching four rules surrounding their team lines during their fourth-round win over Stenhousemuir, including fielding the suspended Callum Woods.

SFA president George Peat explained the rationale behind the rule change in May. "We have brought in this rule so that there is no dubiety in the future," Peat said. "There are no grey areas at all."

e.g.

2010-11     East Stirlingshire fielded ineligible player     ejected and Buckie reinstated
2011-12     Spartans fielded ineligible player     ejected and Culter reinstated
2022-23     Banks o'Dee fielded ineligible player     ejected and Turriff reinstated

If that's the case here it'd be extraordinary if QP could "buy" their way out of it.

Whatever the intent of that statement is, the document in play is dated 2022-23. I refer, again, to section 11.5 which lists the potential punishments. No idea what “exceptional circumstances” literally means but it’s one of those clauses that gives scope for anyone of the list below, ranging from a censure all the way up to expulsion and £100,000 fine.

so despite Mr. Peat’s statement in 2010, there is plenty of grey of many shades.

 

[eez-eh]

20 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Whatever the intent of that statement is, the document in play is dated 2022-23. I refer, again, to section 11.5 which lists the potential punishments. No idea what “exceptional circumstances” literally means but it’s one of those clauses that gives scope for anyone of the list below, ranging from a censure all the way up to expulsion and £100,000 fine.

so despite Mr. Peat’s statement in 2010, there is plenty of grey of many shades.

 

[SandyCromarty]

6 hours ago, Artemis said:

I think you’re right but I don’t think they even need to use section 11.5 in order to avoid expulsion.
Section 11.5 applies where the Tribunal has a discretion in its determination of a sanction. Of course, all the sanctions in the rule itself are discretionary because the list can be read as something or something else. 
Mandatory ejection from the Cup is itself discretionary. Although they use “mandatory” I think that means if they choose to eject a club from the competition, the club can’t appeal the decision. But the decision to exclude the club is discretionary. Otherwise they wouldn’t have “or” after it in the list of sanctions.
However, I think the reality is that every club found to be at fault in cases like this will be ejected. There must be an understanding by the Tribunal, or an explicit direction to them, to automatically eject a club that is at fault. It will therefore only be the other punishments that are discretionary, despite what the rules actually say.

If that 'discretionary' decision is a slap on the wrist and a hefty fine then that would create a whole can of worms.

As I said in an earlier post Banks o Dee would, probably legally, question why the SFA is showing favour to one club and not them, they would then probably and correctly demand reinstatement.

Then we would have chaos where the whole TIE schedules are up in the air.

An impossible situation so the only possible route to be taken is obvious. 

[Skyline Drifter]

19 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Whatever the intent of that statement is, the document in play is dated 2022-23. I refer, again, to section 11.5 which lists the potential punishments. No idea what “exceptional circumstances” literally means but it’s one of those clauses that gives scope for anyone of the list below, ranging from a censure all the way up to expulsion and £100,000 fine.

so despite Mr. Peat’s statement in 2010, there is plenty of grey of many shades.

 

For goodness sake man give it up. Nothing's changed. The 'document in play' is formally reissued, sometimes with amendments, every single year. That rule hasn't changed and the precedent is very clear. There's no grey, you're getting expelled.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

10 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

An impossible situation so the only possible route to be taken is obvious. 

You mean ICT make a plea to the SFA to allow the better footballers to play the next round and as a goodwill gesture QP forfeit their share of the gate from this game?

[SandyCromarty]

22 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

You mean ICT make a plea to the SFA to allow the better footballers to play the next round and as a goodwill gesture QP forfeit their share of the gate from this game?

ICT is not in any position to petition the SFA as they are not involved in the rule breaking. 

I think that your solution above is clutching at straws, if it had been ICT that won the game and then found to have broken the rules, I'm sure you would have been adamant in your condemnation.

We are all aware that rules are open to interpretation but in this case they are black and white.

Your problem is the clear precedent with Banks O Dee this season.

Imagine the unfairness if after a draw a Manager was allowed to strengthen his weaknesses in a replay by bringing in players, that is the rule interpretation.

Now there is no doubt that you won the game easily and you have my sympathy but your admin let you down. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by SandyCromarty

[bdu98196]

If QP loose this 3-0 and get beaten tonight has any club ever lost 2 competitive games in one day before in different competitions?

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by bdu98196

[Sir Tarmo]

Cheats will never prosper

[bdu98196]

6 minutes ago, Sir Tarmo said:

Cheats will never prosper

Not true unfortunately. I'm sure Dodd's along with the rest of his EBT complicit chums probably don't think that when looking at their bank accounts.

[Skyline Drifter]

26 minutes ago, bdu98196 said:

If QP loose this 3-0 and get beaten tonight has any club ever lost 2 competitive games in one day before in different competitions?

 

They won't "lose it 3-0". You're confusing it with the League Cup where a result is issued for the purposes of group tables. Queen's Park won the game, that won't be changed. They'll just be expelled from the competition and replaced with Inverness.

[PB1994]

59 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

You mean ICT make a plea to the SFA to allow the better footballers to play the next round and as a goodwill gesture QP forfeit their share of the gate from this game?

I’m not sure why you keep being The Caley into this. We haven’t made any appeals or pleas to the SFA. This is an automatic check that the SFA carry out after every game. They have spotted you have fielded an ineligible player and will deal with it accordingly. Nothing to do with the club that lost the cup game.