Discussion in 'Pure Football' started by Trimdon East Durham, May 6, 2010.
The player thought he was on 9 bookings and the Football Leagues own website only had him down as nine bookings Pools are going to contest the decision.
huddersfield at home
Exeter are at home, I was tempted to go and chat with The Spotty Mag Bastard
so when we played Matteo would you have supported a points deduction (which iirc would have relegated us)
There is a lot of confusion, I believe rules changed this year and letters came out late from the league anyway. The captain of a championship club was unaware of the rules as the organisation by the league was shocking
Pools aren't happy with what has happened as they have been punished by both the Football League and the FA. The Football League have took 3 points off them and The FA have fined them 3500 pound and banned the lad for another game
How did we get on in the game we played Matteo? I can't remember now, if we won then we really did get away scott free
Lost 1-0 iirc
Nah....it was on a friday night and we lost 2-0...and i think in the same game, when we took a long throw-in and it went straight in..but the sunderland players were appealing to the ref that a player did get a touch...cant remember who ? ...or was that a year later, defo against barnsley at oakwell though !
Angell was claiming a touch. The useless sack of shite
In fairness the Matteo thing was a clerical mix up, we thought we had the forms in iirc
We were fined £20k so hardly got off scot free
You can't base punishments on who you support or compassionate reasons. Rules are rules, in this case punishable by all the points gained when the player was on the pitch. Palace got a point deduction at the end of last season for the same reasons.
Which is why the West Ham decision was one of the biggest farces in the history of the game, even if it was a different governing body.
Why are they appealing the fact they can't count? Leyton Orient left out a player in the same game because he had nine bookings and five other teams did the same that weekend in league one. It's not up to the Football League to figure it out for them.
But surely the Pools points deduction is the three points they won in the game that Liddle played.
Sunderland had the points they won from the Matteo game deducted, but since we didn't get any points nobody noticed.
The West Ham decision was ridiculous, but the logic was that WHU acted in good faith while dealing with an unusual set of circumstances (which, BTW, would be perfectly acceptable in most European leagues). In other words it wasn't a clerical error.
However, the fact that they continued playing Tevez throughout that season and didn't, in fact, ever quite answer all the questions about his status, means that the logic stinks worse than the fishy flange of a Dagenham stripper.
As I remember it WHU were not deducted points cos "it would of condemed them to relegation and theat would not be fair on the fans who were the innocent party"
Seems the powers that be think WHU fans are more "important" than those of Hartlepool
that can't be a real quote, I refuse to believe that.
He means 'faaaaahns', innit?
Bottom line, the PL bottled it on WHU. They reckoned the team was far enough in the crap to go down without a points deduction and just dished out a huge fine (it's still a record, IIRC, about 5.5 million).
Given the cash involved, WHU would have taken a points deduction to every court they could get their hands on if it had sent them down - potentially dragging out the affair until well into the following season. It would have been worth them investing at least 20 million in this to recoup the projected losses associated with relegation, and would have cost the PL that much and more to successfully defend a case which has a whole set of restraint of trade issues lurking around it. The PL was then desperate for WHU to drop and the whole issue to go away - but they pulled off a fantastic run of form and survived.
Sheff Utd had a go through the courts, but were relatively unprepared (until the final day they didn't know this was on the cards anyway). Hammers could have spent several weeks preparing their case and pursued it more vigorously through the courts because they'd have had time to work out every last option. SUFC, and Wigan, and other clubs in the relegation fight, opted not to start exploring their legal options because they believed WHU were probably down anyway and it was an unnecessary expense (for Wigan this belief was spot on).
The bit about the fans was suggested at the time, but was a fairly obvious smokescreen - it made the decision sound warm and caring, rather than hard-headed and calculated on profit margins. But we all know that the fans are far below the bank statements on the PL's list of priorities.
I don't actually believe it was down to WHU being a London club, or having won the world cup or any of that bollocks. If another team which looked that likely to be relegated was in a similar position I suspect they'd have been treated the same. And nine times out of ten they'd have gone down and the issue would have gone away. The PL gambled on the path of least resistance, and lost. They were arguably lucky to get away with the legal fall-out not disrupting the start of the following season, and in future they'll apply these deductions despite their own precedent (see Pompey, albeit in different circumstances).
Not being funny but it's not the same rule. And it's not the same rules in any case! What I mean is Tevez was not an inelligible player, he had a clause in his contract that was not allowed by Premier League rules - it is entirely different to being inelligible to play. I accept that they should have had a much stiffer punishment (and am still bitter about it if the truth be told - I hate West Ham!) but the simple fact is that the rule that the 2 clubs broke is not the same. Secondly, West Ham play under a set of rules laid out by the Premier League, whilst Hartlepool play under a set of rules laid out by the Football League - the 2 sets of rules are different. So they didn't break the same rule, and the rules are different anyway.
Bottom line - Hartlepool played an inelligible player - penalty is usually to have the points deducted that you won whilst said player was involved. Seems a fair punishment to me. A harsh penalty, but fair none the less.
Slightly off topic, but The FA do what they fuck they feel like. Can anyone remember Tranmere bringing a man on when they had just had one sent off against us. The FA ruled it didnt make any difference, the fuckers should have rules and stick to them
Aye and Aldridge slagged us off after the match despite the fact that they were the ones that cheated. Still can't stand the Scouse twat
Didnt the scouse bastard also score a penalty against us in our promotion party at Tranmere with his fucking stop start run up?
Look, if you are from up here, you should be with the Pool.
Separate names with a comma.