|
|
Post by emochris on Jun 3, 2006 12:48:04 GMT
Scarborough have been relegated to Conference North and Altringham reinstated after the board's AGM.
The club had been asked to provide the FA and the Conference board with information on ground, financial and ownership issues.
They were confident they had given guarantees sought by the Conference to earn a reprieve from relegation.
It means Altringham, who finished bottom of the table, one place above Scarborough, have earned a reprieve.
(my 100th post!!!)
|
|
pies
Stale bacon bap
Super Sexy Sutton
Posts: 230
|
Post by pies on Jun 3, 2006 16:57:57 GMT
It's a complete and utter farce!
|
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Jun 3, 2006 21:25:55 GMT
100 posts and you still can't spell Altrincham  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by emochris on Jun 3, 2006 22:51:42 GMT
Whoa...i got that off the bbc website...not my fault if they spell it wrong...
Scarborough have been relegated from the Conference after an unspecified breach of rules and the league's board has now reinstated Altrincham.
After finishing bottom of the table, Scarborough earned a brief reprieve when Altrincham were docked 18 points for fielding an ineligible player.
The Football Association and Conference then asked Scarborough for financial, ownership and ground information.
Scarborough will start the Conference North season with a 10-point deduction.
Seadogs chairman Malcolm Reynolds congratulated Altrincham but said he had not been given any information about the rule his own club had breached.
"Altrincham had been treated very harshly for a technical offence and it's nice that they will retain their place for next season," he told Scarborough's website.
"However, as of 3 June we have not been charged with any breach and therefore have not had any opportunity to respond.
"We have been advised that the board will write to us with the details of its decision. We will also seek the minutes of the meeting.
"Once we receive details of the alleged breach we will respond. We will consider our position then.
"If we believe that the Conference has acted outside of its jurisdiction we reserve the right to seek immediate judicial redress through the courts."
However, a new rule stipulates that any club which a Conference decision has to pay the board's legal expenses, which could put such a move beyond Scarborough's reach
|
|
|
|
Post by coops on Jun 4, 2006 0:37:17 GMT
'Tis bloody strange this, but typical Conference! Effectively Scabby are being punished twice for the same offence, forced relegation from the Conf National AND a 10 point deduction to start next season with. Mind you, it gets them off the hook with the uptight Alty fans and their supporters from any club unaffected by their breach of the rules so it's trebles all round at conference HQ.
Tinpot doesn't even start to describe it, and you all want to be here???
|
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Jun 4, 2006 8:32:47 GMT
Coops. nobody in their right mind actually wants to "be" in the Conference per se but we all want to see just how far our teams can progress. We've all seen what the likes of Wimbledon and Wigan (who only beat Stafford once in their last 6 seasons of NPL football) have gone on to do.
I hear elsewhere that creepy Crawley are going into admin. Does this mean just a 10pt deduction and which season does that apply, 2005/6 or 2006/7, or are they up for eviction as well.
You would have thought it would be quite simple to relegate two teams from a league at the end of a season. Lord help us next season when it's FOUR.
I think next year that a far more sensible thing for the Conference National to do to avoid this type of shennanigans would be as follows:
Totally disregard league positions. Term all clubs "Confmates" then pick two at random to be "The Big Conferencehood Leaders." During the season these leaders nominate more clubs to join the "Big Conferencehood" and these clubs are safe for the following season. The last eight Confmates left who are not either chosen by the Big Conferencehood or pull out membership from a raffle are up for eviction and it goes to a public phone/text/net vote.
As soon as the season ends, Davina Mcall gathers a huge crowd outside the Conference AGM and reads out the results, eg
"Tamworth you have been evicted. Please leave the Conference National!". No recriminations, job done!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Jun 4, 2006 10:28:50 GMT
Seems to make more sense than the conference's ideas!
This is stupid. I wish something could be done about it. Clubs relegated on points are having tantrums because clubs that finished higher in the league have been reprieved from big deductions and relegation, and other clubs are talking about settling things in court. Court! Oh if only this stupid f*****g league would sort itself out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Col ISIHAC. on Jun 4, 2006 15:46:28 GMT
The whole thing's a joke. Not a funny one, more your Bernard Manning, or Chubby Brown type of not-funny-humour  Who's in charge around here? I want to complain...  |
|
|
|
Post by amberaleman on Jun 4, 2006 16:16:21 GMT
Seems to me that the Conference (and this almost certainly goes for other leagues) needs to carry out a thorough review of its own rules and the penalties that apply if those rules are broken. The current rulebook is just not fit for purpose.  You have a situation (such as at Altrincham) where there's a clear breach and a clear penalty which then has to apply, but the result looks horribly unjust. Then there are other "offences" which are less obviously breaches of the rules, and so it's not clear what penalty (if any) should apply. The offence then either goes unpunished or the Conference make up a penalty based on an interpretation of the rules. It's a mess.  |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Jun 4, 2006 18:16:58 GMT
'Scuse me but IMO Bernard Manning is funny, just not "PC".
Chubby Brown, on the other hand is just foul mouthed and crude.
|
|
;D
