Front page news

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14080
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by Darlo_Pete » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:50 pm

Cheers for that Andy. Sounds like Ashton may have problems of their own and didn't want to stir things up with the FA any further.

AndyPark
Posts: 12155
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by AndyPark » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:32 pm

This game was from last April though.

poppyfield
Posts: 1889
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by poppyfield » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:13 pm

Help get the club back to Darlo by helping to spread the word about the "Back to Darlo!" fund. The image on the right will be constantly updated with the latest total so please feel free to use the image link below the thermometer on your own signatures, blogs, websites, etc.Image
Image link: http://www.mydarlo.co.uk/img/BTD-therm-350x100.jpg

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:28 am

shawry wrote:
Darlofan97 wrote:
shawry wrote:
Darlofan97 wrote:its the actual football clubs in our league that want to see us deducted points for an error which has changed nothing.
Can you explain what you mean by an error thats changed nothing?
Well had we actually received proper International Clearance for Bell he would have still played in the exact same games, contributing the exact same, with the same results.

Basically, the outcome for not having International Clearance for Bell is exactly the same as if we actually received International Clearance for him. He wasn't banned from playing football in England, if he was I could see Nantwich, Salford etc. having a point.
Surely the fact that we didn't have International Clearance for him means that he shouldn't have played, which is upheld by the fact that we have been punished. That means that we gained points while he was playing, when he shouldn't have been.

By the same reasoning, if we did the same this season we would be deducted the 12 points, plus any other points deduction for the new offence. We got a bit lucky in that the league saw sense with how silly the rule is for welsh clubs playing in England, but I wouldn't have been surprised to have got a 12 point immediate deduction.
Yes, Bell was ineligible for the games he played in. But the reason why he was ineligible was through not obtaining International Clearance.

Had we known to obtain International Clearance for Bell then he would have still played in the exact same games, just the same as what he did when we didn't have any International Clearance.

My point is that Bell wasn't banned from playing in England through suspension or offence, therefore the innocuous error of the football club not seeking to obtain International Clearance for a player playing in the English League System was an oversight which changed absolutely nothing, as Bell would have played in the same games whether we had clearance or not.

We were lucky not to get a points deduction given previous precedents set, but the actual offence was harmless. So common sense has prevailed.

User avatar
fozzovmurton
Posts: 1458
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Murton, Co. Durham
Contact:

Re: Front page news

Post by fozzovmurton » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:04 am

Why does Welsh based English League System Members come under the jurisdiction of the FAW and not the FA...I am guessing it will be the same for Swansea, Newport, Colwyn Bay, Wrexham as well as Cardiff.

Would it not be ideal to make/have them affiliate with London rather than Cardiff, I seem to remember arguments brewing when Welsh Based English League Teams were close to getting into Europe a few years ago.

Is there a similar thing in place for Berwick and formerly Gretna when they played in England and Derry City in Northern Ireland who play in The Republics League???

This is an honest mistake, It aint like the lad was banned was through suspension. I know the UK seem quite unique in world football in that we have 4 non-independent national teams, but I dont understand he need for international clearance for what is essentially all part of the same constituent country

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Image
442 Football Crazy Admin

If you need an avatar or signature I recommend Ron Carr of RCarr Designs

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5995
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:10 am

The last precedent set at top level was Sunderland who escaped a points deduction also.
Sunderland Issue wrote:A minor error in a form submitted to Fifa on his return from Germany meant that, contrary to Sunderland's understanding, Ji no longer had international clearance after all but the Premier League are confident the slip was unintentional. Moreover, once the problem in the paperwork was spotted last October, Sunderland immediately admitted the mix-up to the Premier League. The ruling body then decided the case would be settled by its board rather than an independent commission and imposed a "significant" fine.
Maybe the governing bodies are seeing that a genuine error which as mentioned no unfair advantage was to be gained should not be punished.

A bit different to playing someone who is banned, although I was surprised the Evo Board leaned on the suspended punishment side.

TFDM
Posts: 2123
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:32 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Front page news

Post by TFDM » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:33 am

As far as my understanding of international clearance one of the reasons behind international clearance is to ensure a player isn't jumping across footballing boundaries to avoid unpaid fines / fees and avoiding suspensions etc.

This is one of the things which makes the bell situation stupid because Cardiff's youth team play in the under 18 Professional Development League 2 which consists of, yep English clubs. Likewise the same for their development team (reserves) who play in the under 21 Professional Development League 2. Again, full of English clubs.

So really Bell moving from Cardiff to us wouldn't have allowed him to avoid any bans anyway because the FA would have them noted etc. Even if he had managed to play for us while suspended it would have been picked up a lot quicker. As long as he's served any bans and has nothing outstanding elsewhere then to all extents and purposes international clearance would have been nothing more than a paper exercise. The whole thing is absurd and thankfully some common sense has prevailed.
Last edited by TFDM on Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

HarryCharltonsCat
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by HarryCharltonsCat » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:36 am

Didn't Marine get a large points deduction for the same offence as us a few seasons back? I think that's what's got club's backs up. They will be thinking, had it been someone other than the biggest club in the league, would the result have been the same? Yes, it seems perfectly fair what has been done, it's just unfortunate that we were the first club to benefit from the league's largesse.

TFDM
Posts: 2123
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:32 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Front page news

Post by TFDM » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:41 am

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:Didn't Marine get a large points deduction for the same offence as us a few seasons back? I think that's what's got club's backs up. They will be thinking, had it been someone other than the biggest club in the league, would the result have been the same? Yes, it seems perfectly fair what has been done, it's just unfortunate that we were the first club to benefit from the league's largesse.
I believe so. However the rules were different then. About 2 or 3 years ago an addition was added to the rules to state that leagues could dock points for any wins (up to a maximum of 13?) or simply use their discretion. I believe the discretion part was the line that was added a couple of years ago. So the league has done nothing wrong, they have followed the rules laid out. I suspect had that amendment been there in the past the league would have used it. However it wasn't, so they couldn't. Its probably come about because of stupid situations like the one we've experienced.

User avatar
mikkyx
Site Admin
Posts: 3741
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:52 pm

Re: Front page news

Post by mikkyx » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:43 am

I think our punishment might have been different if he'd had a massive impact in the games he took part in, or played the full 90 minutes in all of them.

Did he get any assists in these games, and did he play a full game at any point? I honestly can't remember.
Darlo Uncovered flux capacitor maintainer-in-chief
Darlo Fans Radio | Official Website

TFDM
Posts: 2123
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:32 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Front page news

Post by TFDM » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:51 am

mikkyx wrote:I think our punishment might have been different if he'd had a massive impact in the games he took part in, or played the full 90 minutes in all of them.

Did he get any assists in these games, and did he play a full game at any point? I honestly can't remember.
I don't think he did. I'm sure I saw every game he took part in and remember him have virtually zero impact. I fully expected us to be deducted points but its good to see some common sense used. Clearly the rule has been updated to allow it. I can understand why other clubs are miffed but shouting on in the paper and on twitter (ridiculous) isn't the way to do it. Rules have been followed and we've been dealt with according to them. And frankly we've been due some good fortune anyway from the football authorities for the amount of s*** we've had to put up from them in the last few years.

User avatar
Magical Quakers
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Nottingham

Re: Front page news

Post by Magical Quakers » Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:24 am

Didn't he also technically come to us via another club (Doncaster wasn't) making the paper trail even more obtuse?

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6717
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:33 am

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:Didn't Marine get a large points deduction for the same offence as us a few seasons back? I think that's what's got club's backs up.
Obviously the Workington Chairman is still very upset about previous injustices dished out to the likes of Marine and Altringham :roll:

It's nice to know there's someone in the league who's considerate and doesn't just think about themselves and their club.
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

shawry
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by shawry » Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:48 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Yes, Bell was ineligible for the games he played in. But the reason why he was ineligible was through not obtaining International Clearance.

Had we known to obtain International Clearance for Bell then he would have still played in the exact same games, just the same as what he did when we didn't have any International Clearance.

My point is that Bell wasn't banned from playing in England through suspension or offence, therefore the innocuous error of the football club not seeking to obtain International Clearance for a player playing in the English League System was an oversight which changed absolutely nothing, as Bell would have played in the same games whether we had clearance or not.

We were lucky not to get a points deduction given previous precedents set, but the actual offence was harmless. So common sense has prevailed.
I'm sorry, you're saying its ok, if we got international clearance we could have played him, but it doesn't matter that we didn't

It does matter, it matters because we were supposed to get clearance for him to play, and we didn't, hence why we were punished.

Now, I agree, that the suspension of the deduction is right because of the situation of Cardiff playing in the English leagues, it doesn't detract from the fact that however you colour it, we played an ineligible player in several games. If we had signed him from France then I'd have expected the league to enforce the points deduction immediately.

joejaques
Posts: 3057
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Milford Haven

Re: Front page news

Post by joejaques » Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:49 pm

shawry wrote:
Darlofan97 wrote:
Yes, Bell was ineligible for the games he played in. But the reason why he was ineligible was through not obtaining International Clearance.

Had we known to obtain International Clearance for Bell then he would have still played in the exact same games, just the same as what he did when we didn't have any International Clearance.

My point is that Bell wasn't banned from playing in England through suspension or offence, therefore the innocuous error of the football club not seeking to obtain International Clearance for a player playing in the English League System was an oversight which changed absolutely nothing, as Bell would have played in the same games whether we had clearance or not.

We were lucky not to get a points deduction given previous precedents set, but the actual offence was harmless. So common sense has prevailed.
I'm sorry, you're saying its ok, if we got international clearance we could have played him, but it doesn't matter that we didn't

It does matter, it matters because we were supposed to get clearance for him to play, and we didn't, hence why we were punished.

Now, I agree, that the suspension of the deduction is right because of the situation of Cardiff playing in the English leagues, it doesn't detract from the fact that however you colour it, we played an ineligible player in several games. If we had signed him from France then I'd have expected the league to enforce the points deduction immediately.
If we had signed him from France, I think we would have been aware of the requirement for international clearance, and the problem would not have arisen. :roll:
Image

poppyfield
Posts: 1889
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by poppyfield » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:05 pm

Help get the club back to Darlo by helping to spread the word about the "Back to Darlo!" fund. The image on the right will be constantly updated with the latest total so please feel free to use the image link below the thermometer on your own signatures, blogs, websites, etc.Image
Image link: http://www.mydarlo.co.uk/img/BTD-therm-350x100.jpg

AnthonyP
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:31 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Front page news

Post by AnthonyP » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:11 pm

dfc4me wrote:Think the reason the NPL refuse to explain their decision or give us a points deduction was because it was their mistake that allowed Bell to play as many games as he did. If their officials had done their job properly his lack of clearance would have been discovered after 1 or 2 matches. As it was it took 8 and would probably have been more if it hadn't been picked up by Shildon. Of course they are not going to admit that!
This is correct and should be really really obvious to other clubs in our league.

We got off lucky ... a first in living memory

Post Reply