|
Post by frankiegth on Feb 13, 2007 11:28:20 GMT
I love the way so many people have changed their tune on this issue since last season... Yes, when it was poor Altrincham there were petitions and everything, are AFC Wombledon really that unpopular? I think possibly it was the fact Alty were in effect going to be relegated whereas Wombledon look like dipping out on promotion. Which while being harsh, IMHO is not as bad as being relegated. Also it could be that Alty bought their player concerned form an ENGLISH club and possibly assumed, wrongly, IC was not an issue. There may well be an element of with the popularity issue aswell, who knows. Certainly FC SCUM OF MANCHESTER polarize opinion. Personally I can't be doing with them.
|
|
|
Post by malxscfc on Feb 14, 2007 14:52:17 GMT
I love the way so many people have changed their tune on this issue since last season... I also love the way people keep mentioning a 'national system' to track player movements, be it a 'database' or a paper system. You are all living in cloud cuckoo land if you think this is something the FA could implement at the drop of a hat. How much time, effort and money does the UK passport system cost to run, or the benefits system, or the NHS system? The FA would be required to implement a system on a similar scale - who is going to pay for that? BTW, the FA (and the Conference) do have electronic systems for transfers. The Passport Agency has about 60 million individuals to cater for - some of whom are would-be mass-murderers, and therefore the vetting has to be of a high standard. There are only a few thousand British FA-registered footballers (down to about Step 5,) say, however, and their behaviour is unlikely to be a threat to the British way of life! Back in my yoof, I received a NI number which was unique to me. As you know, the format is AB 123456 C. Not complicated. For all English/British players you can build a database of these, and feed it into a single source - merely a website with decent servers - and all Clubs could get free downloads and 24 hour access to this database. Cost to be included in their annual FA fees. The actual set-up cost to an IT Company might be, say, a small 5-figure sum, but data input and uploading could be handled by perhaps one single full-time FA employee. A far cry from the (apparent) dozens needed to sift through all the trails of paperwork in current use. If a foreign player is eligible to receive money from plying his/her trade in Britain, he is OBLIGED to have a N.I. number anyway, so he/she's instantly traceable. Can't see the problem myself.
|
|
|
Post by medibot on Feb 14, 2007 23:37:43 GMT
Or you could just not be an idiot (not you malx btw, i mean the people making mistakes!).
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Feb 18, 2007 0:49:16 GMT
For the record, I never signed the Alty petition, so personally I don't think I'm being hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by J Esaj PRA on Feb 18, 2007 22:57:09 GMT
Can't see the problem myself. Just because you can't see it, don't assume it isn't there. For a start, your initial assumptions about numbers are wildly inaccurate. For the system to work, it's have to cover all leagues with FA affiliation, possibly including Sunday and junior leagues. You IT system would need to be close to flawless - it has taken me two years of data modelling to try to get a grip of the activities on one single club, so do not under estimate the scale of the task. Initialising the database would be huge task maintaining it would be time consuming. It is not an impossible task, but I can't see the FA spending 6-figure sums just to avoid incompetence at a few clubs. Far better for the individual clubs to implement their own procedures, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by malxscfc on Feb 18, 2007 23:30:24 GMT
No doubt this outmoded paper system will continue longer than it should - and waste millions of man-hours across the whole Nation in its continued, flawed implementation. Better the FA embraces the 21st Century, bites the bullet, and seeks to eliminate human error from its system. That's fairer for all. Since there are about 40 million PCs in the country, I'd imagine every single Pub team has access to the internet, and the ability to run a software program. Sure, there are difficulties to overcome, but that's why you employ IT programmers or Management Consultants. Then blame them when it goes wrong! Just better not employ a company called Multiplex..... Even 50,000 footballers wouldn't be too much hassle IF you use National Insurance numbers as a basis. Other than by data input error, it's relatively foolproof. And even a six-figure sum (which you estimate) for the FA is small change. Why, even humble little SCFC should receive that from them this year! ;D
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Mar 24, 2007 10:03:51 GMT
I see that the issue was raised in parliament.
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Mar 27, 2007 9:22:11 GMT
Seems like it's one rule for us Midlanders and teams looked on as "northern monkeys" and another for the south.
|
|
davetscfc
Steaming Bovril
......and it's Salisbury City......
Posts: 457
|
Post by davetscfc on Mar 27, 2007 10:10:38 GMT
Seems like it's one rule for us Midlanders and teams looked on as "northern monkeys" and another for the south. Don't think it's a North/South thing. I bet if it was us, or some other typical non league club rather than AFCW "the fans' club" then we wouldn't have been discussed in parliament!
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Mar 27, 2007 10:57:50 GMT
Seems like it's one rule for us Midlanders and teams looked on as "northern monkeys" and another for the south. Don't think it's a North/South thing. I bet if it was us, or some other typical non league club rather than AFCW "the fans' club" then we wouldn't have been discussed in parliament! You're possibly right Dave. Still stinks though.
|
|
|
Post by Col ISIHAC. on Mar 27, 2007 12:00:31 GMT
Clearly the thing to do is to promote a boycott of pre-season friendlies against the Wombles next season then! Feckin stupid though. According to the Fa, the rules were interpreted correctly, and the deduction was sithin the rules and also correct, but the poor FA reckoned it was a bit harsh! Even though it was correct. WTF??
|
|
|
Post by coops on Mar 27, 2007 17:29:28 GMT
In my humble opinion I'm glad that finally a "big club" fell foul of this ridiculous rule and maybe now the rules will be rewritten so we don't get any more clubs being hammered for administrative mistakes. After all, there but for the grace of whoever you believe in and all that.
|
|
|
Post by medibot on Mar 27, 2007 23:06:17 GMT
If anybody is interested...
AFC are the school bullies of non league footy, if they want something they will get it somehow.
Conversely i have no problem with them appealing the decision.
However, there was no way they should have been able to reduce the punsihment because the league rules are there for a reason.
So, the FA again have proved to be weak and easily manipulated by the AFC PR machine and misguided MP protests. Frankly i am disgusted.
Incidentally, the MP who asked Mr Blair about the issue seems to think Jermaine Darlington used to play for Cardiff Central, says it all really.
Also my local (as in Sutton) MP signed the petition, sadly he has not supported a single Sutton United venture.
As Jarvis Cocker says, c*nts are still running the world.
|
|
|
Post by Giggy of Telford on Mar 28, 2007 0:35:08 GMT
AFC are the school bullies of non league footy, if they want something they will get it somehow. I wouldn't say we are bullies, if anything at times the Unibond seem out to get us but I'm led to believe paranoia like this is common amoungst other teams aswell. Only set of bullies we've came accross were the thugs who came over from Fleetwood on Saturday, match was segregated with a large away following was expected, 161 isn't a bad effort but seeing as they told us they were briging 400 down we were a bit disappointed. Anyway, those that did turn up caused enough damage basically they were drunk already when they got here (smuggled alcohol onto coach), smashed up their own coaches which then left without them so they could find their own way home. Approximately £800 worth of damage to the facilities in the away end has been evaluated by the club. One bloke even ran on the pitch when we scored in an attempt to get to home fans to start a fight, when challenged by stewards they then threw punches at the stewards. Only a minorit of their fans were idiots but we've had many more fans when we've played the likes of Hednesford, Hereford, Millwall, ect, over recent years yet no trouble at any of them, we took about 2000 to Hednesford on New Years Day and again, no trouble whatsoever.........ok, these people from fleetwood (who I shall refrain from associating with fleetwood fans) were not so much bullies as idiots, especially in destroying their ride home.
Now that I've had my rant I'll get back to the actual topic. I'm torn on this one, on one hand it is what is written in the rulebook but on the other hand 18pts seemed a bit harsh for a mistake. However the same happened to Altricham last season and they didn't get any reprieve from it. All teams should be treated equally in these situations but the 18pts seems very harsh for what it was. In Altrincham's or Wimbledon's position I would have been fuming when it happened. Long story short I don't know which choice is right but it should be the same for different clubs.
|
|
|
Post by coops on Mar 28, 2007 8:49:31 GMT
The way I see it is that eventually one club had to win an appeal for the rules to be looked at, otherwise the FA would just keep trotting out the "the rules are the same for everyone" excuse for sitting on their collective arses. I totally agree that it is typical that it was AFCW that managed to overturn the points deduction and that any other club would have been blanked, but now the precedent has been set hopefully the next "little club" that makes a mistake in their admin will get a more reasonable punishment.
And on a purely selfish basis, AFCW getting their points back does not affect Tamuff!!
|
|