A little more Non League...
Select messages from
# through # FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next  :| |:
CTFC.net Fans Forum -> -> Talk football

#121:  Author: nemo PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 10:42 am
    —
matcowdrey wrote:
nemo wrote:
Simon wrote:
Looks like it could all go Pete Tong for HH.

Charged by the FA with misconduct due to using a player suspended sine die.

Could be a complicated one as it seems the player actually appeared for 5 clubs whilst banned and none of the FA websites were updated to show the suspension....

From what I've heard the various FAs - Surrey, Sussex and Kent I believe should be hanging their heads in shame. Any criticism/sanction of HH or Melford Simpson would simply be just a massive whitewash to try and save FA officials faces


Well at least there's no precedent there then... Rolling Eyes

Good point!

#122:  Author: IanLocation: The Parish of Rusper PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 12:13 pm
    —
nemo wrote:
Simon wrote:
Looks like it could all go Pete Tong for HH.

Charged by the FA with misconduct due to using a player suspended sine die.

Could be a complicated one as it seems the player actually appeared for 5 clubs whilst banned and none of the FA websites were updated to show the suspension....

From what I've heard the various FAs - Surrey, Sussex and Kent I believe should be hanging their heads in shame. Any criticism/sanction of HH or Melford Simpson would simply be just a massive whitewash to try and save FA officials faces


If Melford Simpson is the player involved then he shouldn't be immune from criticism - he surely knew he was banned sine die?

#123:  Author: nemo PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 4:30 pm
    —
Ian wrote:
nemo wrote:
Simon wrote:
Looks like it could all go Pete Tong for HH.

Charged by the FA with misconduct due to using a player suspended sine die.

Could be a complicated one as it seems the player actually appeared for 5 clubs whilst banned and none of the FA websites were updated to show the suspension....

From what I've heard the various FAs - Surrey, Sussex and Kent I believe should be hanging their heads in shame. Any criticism/sanction of HH or Melford Simpson would simply be just a massive whitewash to try and save FA officials faces


If Melford Simpson is the player involved then he shouldn't be immune from criticism - he surely knew he was banned sine die?

It helps to have some paperwork...

#124:  Author: Simon PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 9:01 pm
    —
Ian wrote:
nemo wrote:
Simon wrote:
Looks like it could all go Pete Tong for HH.

Charged by the FA with misconduct due to using a player suspended sine die.

Could be a complicated one as it seems the player actually appeared for 5 clubs whilst banned and none of the FA websites were updated to show the suspension....

From what I've heard the various FAs - Surrey, Sussex and Kent I believe should be hanging their heads in shame. Any criticism/sanction of HH or Melford Simpson would simply be just a massive whitewash to try and save FA officials faces


If Melford Simpson is the player involved then he shouldn't be immune from criticism - he surely knew he was banned sine die?


That is exactly what the player is saying. He wasn't aware as the suspension related to unpaid disciplinary fees by the club not relating to him personally.

Surely a bit odd that the player has played for 4/5 clubs since then (ironically including Shoreham I gather) and not one club was aware. And the suspension did not appear on any of the lusts of the County FAs involved.

Perhaps the blazers expect every club secretary to be a mind reader....

#125:  Author: Red, Red & Red PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 10:50 pm
    —
Simon wrote:
Ian wrote:
nemo wrote:
Simon wrote:
Looks like it could all go Pete Tong for HH.

Charged by the FA with misconduct due to using a player suspended sine die.

Could be a complicated one as it seems the player actually appeared for 5 clubs whilst banned and none of the FA websites were updated to show the suspension....

From what I've heard the various FAs - Surrey, Sussex and Kent I believe should be hanging their heads in shame. Any criticism/sanction of HH or Melford Simpson would simply be just a massive whitewash to try and save FA officials faces


If Melford Simpson is the player involved then he shouldn't be immune from criticism - he surely knew he was banned sine die?


That is exactly what the player is saying. He wasn't aware as the suspension related to unpaid disciplinary fees by the club not relating to him personally.

Surely a bit odd that the player has played for 4/5 clubs since then (ironically including Shoreham I gather) and not one club was aware. And the suspension did not appear on any of the lusts of the County FAs involved.

Perhaps the blazers expect every club secretary to be a mind reader....
not sure I want to think about what the County FQ's are lusting about!

#126:  Author: IanLocation: The Parish of Rusper PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:16 pm
    —
Simon wrote:
Ian wrote:
nemo wrote:
Simon wrote:
Looks like it could all go Pete Tong for HH.

Charged by the FA with misconduct due to using a player suspended sine die.

Could be a complicated one as it seems the player actually appeared for 5 clubs whilst banned and none of the FA websites were updated to show the suspension....

From what I've heard the various FAs - Surrey, Sussex and Kent I believe should be hanging their heads in shame. Any criticism/sanction of HH or Melford Simpson would simply be just a massive whitewash to try and save FA officials faces


If Melford Simpson is the player involved then he shouldn't be immune from criticism - he surely knew he was banned sine die?


That is exactly what the player is saying. He wasn't aware as the suspension related to unpaid disciplinary fees by the club not relating to him personally.

Surely a bit odd that the player has played for 4/5 clubs since then (ironically including Shoreham I gather) and not one club was aware. And the suspension did not appear on any of the lusts of the County FAs involved.

Perhaps the blazers expect every club secretary to be a mind reader....


I wasn't aware of the exact situation (Google gave me nothing, which is probably part of the problem Very Happy !) and assumed it was for assaulting an official as thats what sine die is normally imposed for.

So it's just until fines are paid, but no one was ever told that they weren't paid? What a shambles. They should probably brush this under the carpet...

#127:  Author: Crawley BenLocation: Broadfield PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 3:12 pm
    —
Adam Hinshelwood has left Brighton and is taking over as Hastings manager.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/spor.....ings_boss/

Ben

#128:  Author: nemo PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 6:13 pm
    —
FA find against Haywards Heath. Points deduction to be finalised at meeting with the SCFL

#129:  Author: lochislairLocation: Dunny on the Wold, Hassocks PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 8:19 pm
    —
nemo wrote:
FA find against Haywards Heath. Points deduction to be finalised at meeting with the SCFL


Seems very much as if the FA expect clubs to employ clairvoyants as well as administrators.

#130:  Author: nemo PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 10:41 pm
    —
lochislair wrote:
nemo wrote:
FA find against Haywards Heath. Points deduction to be finalised at meeting with the SCFL


Seems very much as if the FA expect clubs to employ clairvoyants as well as administrators.

thumbleft Laughing
Its an absolute joke

#131:  Author: Red, Red & Red PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 8:21 am
    —
nemo wrote:
lochislair wrote:
nemo wrote:
FA find against Haywards Heath. Points deduction to be finalised at meeting with the SCFL


Seems very much as if the FA expect clubs to employ clairvoyants as well as administrators.

thumbleft Laughing
Its an absolute joke
the FA are never wrong except for when they dont get it right

#132:  Author: IanLocation: The Parish of Rusper PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:14 pm
    —
nemo wrote:
lochislair wrote:
nemo wrote:
FA find against Haywards Heath. Points deduction to be finalised at meeting with the SCFL


Seems very much as if the FA expect clubs to employ clairvoyants as well as administrators.

thumbleft Laughing
Its an absolute joke


I wonder if they will find them guilty, and impose a 0 point deduction because of the circumstances.

#133:  Author: nemo PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:40 pm
    —
Ian wrote:
nemo wrote:
lochislair wrote:
nemo wrote:
FA find against Haywards Heath. Points deduction to be finalised at meeting with the SCFL


Seems very much as if the FA expect clubs to employ clairvoyants as well as administrators.

thumbleft Laughing
Its an absolute joke


I wonder if they will find them guilty, and impose a 0 point deduction because of the circumstances.

Hope so - it would be the sensible thing to do but hey this is the SCFL 🙁

#134:  Author: Simon PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 7:50 pm
    —
Ian wrote:
nemo wrote:
lochislair wrote:
nemo wrote:
FA find against Haywards Heath. Points deduction to be finalised at meeting with the SCFL


Seems very much as if the FA expect clubs to employ clairvoyants as well as administrators.

thumbleft Laughing
Its an absolute joke


I wonder if they will find them guilty, and impose a 0 point deduction because of the circumstances.


3 points would be OK and a healthy dose of 'brush it under the carpet'.

#135:  Author: Red, Red & Red PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 10:16 pm
    —
[url]
http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/.....07142.html
[/url]
On Heath website
Quote:


SCFL have tonight issued Heath with a 9 point deduction leaving the title and promotion in the balance



CTFC.net Fans Forum -> -> Talk football


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next  :| |:
Page 9 of 10

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group