Non League Football



Not sure if posted elsewhere, South Shields lost their appeal against the season being expunged and have been ordered to pay the FA’s share of the costs, leaving them with a £200k legal bill.
 
What is the saying, you reap what you sow!

Always thought it was a disagrace that in the FA vase quarter final a few years ago they were 4 2 down and down to 10 men, when their floodlights went out, with only 10 mins left! you never knew whether that was on purpose or not.

However either way they should have awarded the tie to the opposition imo, as you don't come back from that, they didn't ,replayed the game and won it, so like I say you reap what you sow!
 
Voice of fair play said:
What is the saying, you reap what you sow!

Always thought it was a disagrace that in the FA vase quarter final a few years ago they were 4 2 down and down to 10 men, when their floodlights went out, with only 10 mins left! you never knew whether that was on purpose or not.

However either way they should have awarded the tie to the opposition imo, as you don't come back from that, they didn't ,replayed the game and won it, so like I say you reap what you sow!
Click to expand...

I'll bite, don't be stupid.
 
Bonzo said:
I'll bite, don't be stupid.
Click to expand...

Just how I look at it, I believe in fair play and sportsmanship there is nothing stupid about that and it was not a wind up and not meant for a bite.

It is simply my point of view over the incident that happened said at the time that they should have conceded the tie and still believe that! There is nothing stupid with that in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Just how I look at it, I believe in fair play and sportsmanship there is nothing stupid about that and it was not a wind up and not meant for a bite.

It is simply my point of view over the incident that happened said at the time and nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt the FA or whoever ordered the reply? I dont know just speculating
 
Voice of fair play said:
Just how I look at it, I believe in fair play and sportsmanship there is nothing stupid about that and it was not a wind up and not meant for a bite.

It is simply my point of view over the incident that happened said at the time that they should have conceded the tie and still believe that! There is nothing stupid with that in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Tell me a club that would hand the game over?
CaptainRed said:
Morpeth Town likes this
Click to expand...

I might be wrong but I don't think it's solely Shields bill. They were backed by other clubs in the same situation who wanted to carry on playing , so they all chip in at the end.
 
Last edited:
Bonzo said:
Tell me a club that would hand the game over?


I might be wrong but I don't think it's solely Shields bill. They were backed by other clubs in the same situation who wanted to carry on playing , so they all chip in at the end.
Click to expand...

I don't know the people running other clubs to comment on which won't and which would, what I do know and have a opinion on is what is fair and unfair, and not concede a game where you are two goals down with ten mins to go and down to ten men, when floodlights fail at your ground is not fair or right, but guess we have diffrent principles regarding that if you think that I am stupid for wanting the right thing done.

Ironically when South Shields came into some good fortune other clubs seemed jealous of them where I thought it was fanastic to have such a forward thinking and progressive club, then when they had a chance to do the right thing they failed miserably.
 
Bonzo said:
Tell me a club that would hand the game over?
Click to expand...

The only comparison I can think of is when Arsenal beat Sheffield United with the controversial goal when Sheffield gave the ball back to them and Kanu (iirc) scored the winner.

Big outcry after the game and Arsenal asked the FA if they could replay the game, which they allowed.
 
Voice of fair play said:
What is the saying, you reap what you sow!

Always thought it was a disagrace that in the FA vase quarter final a few years ago they were 4 2 down and down to 10 men, when their floodlights went out, with only 10 mins left! you never knew whether that was on purpose or not.

However either way they should have awarded the tie to the opposition imo, as you don't come back from that, they didn't ,replayed the game and won it, so like I say you reap what you sow!
Click to expand...
So by following the rules set out for the competition by the FA you now think they should've just disregarded that and handed the tie to Morpeth? Voice of fair play?!?!?
200k to a non league team is a joke the FA is corrupt and do not give a toss about the grass roots of football, they've made that clear by only showing any care to the top 2 divisions, football is dead!!!!
 
Dick Fitzwell said:
So by following the rules set out for the competition by the FA you now think they should've just disregarded that and handed the tie to Morpeth? Voice of fair play?!?!?
200k to a non league team is a joke the FA is corrupt and do not give a toss about the grass roots of football, they've made that clear by only showing any care to the top 2 divisions, football is dead!!!!
Click to expand...

Can’t really comment about the 200k as don’t know the inns and out and whether that is right or not

But in answer to your first question absolutely yes, at the very least they should have asked the FA if they could do that,any team whoever it is ,who are down to ten men, 4 2 down and floodlights fail at their ground with 10 mins to go ,should without a doubt in my mind concede the tie no matter what the rules say, as that would be the right and sporting thing to do.

Whether it be South Shields or Liverpool!
 
Last edited:
Dick Fitzwell said:
So by following the rules set out for the competition by the FA you now think they should've just disregarded that and handed the tie to Morpeth? Voice of fair play?!?!?
200k to a non league team is a joke the FA is corrupt and do not give a toss about the grass roots of football, they've made that clear by only showing any care to the top 2 divisions, football is dead!!!!
Click to expand...

So why didn't Shields follow the rules about the ending of the current season, as set out for leagues at their level by the FA, instead of disregarding that to waste time and money on a court case? If the club had that sort of money to spare, and really cared about grassroots football, wouldn't it do better to use the cash to help other teams that are struggling to stay afloat instead of lining lawyers' pockets?
 
Voice of fair play said:
Can’t really comment about the 200k as don’t know the inns and out and whether that is right or not

But in answer to your first question absolutely yes, at the very least they should have asked the FA if they could do that,any team whoever it is ,who are down to ten men, 4 2 down and floodlights fail at their ground with 10 mins to go ,should without a doubt in my mind concede the tie no matter what the rules say, as that would be the right and sporting thing to do.

Whether it be South Shields or Liverpool!
Click to expand...

It wasn't 10 minutes by the way, there was at least another 7 to be added on.
Could you seriously see Liverpool in a 1/4 final cup-tie tell the other team you can have the game with 10-17 minutes to go?
 

Back
Top