Appeal

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Post Reply
Alfie
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 8:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Eye, Suffolk

Appeal

Post by Alfie » Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:39 am

Club submit formal appeal over fine to FA.

https://darlingtonfc.co.uk/news/quakers ... peal-to-fa

Old Git
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by Old Git » Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:46 pm

Lets hope we are successful but given our past experiences with the FA I am not too confident. Likely they will close ranks with the NL and not want to rock the boat. As I would think a number of clubs are in a similar position surely a precedent will be set by our hearing or whoever is first before the FA as the cases will surely be very similar.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:10 pm

This is the whole point though....

Out of the 17? 18 clubs? Are we saying that not one had one “just cause” - A couple of clubs have pleaded guilty and a couple more might not appeal, but even so.

D.J. Has put forward a number of “just causes” and he looks like he means business.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

lo36789
Posts: 9339
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Appeal

Post by lo36789 » Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:12 pm

Hopefully a little common sense does prevail here. There are so many variables and different responses by different clubs.

I do worry of all clubs we are actually in the worst position. At least the likes of Spennymoor just simply said we cannot and will not play the remainder of the season very early on.

I don't think it will be too hard to show that liabilities for remainder of season > assets (cash). Just fear the appeals board, if they want to, will question "you justify not playing Boston because you couldn't continue the season, but you played Weymouth however many days later".

Darlogramps
Posts: 5484
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:38 am

lo36789 wrote:Hopefully a little common sense does prevail here. There are so many variables and different responses by different clubs.

I do worry of all clubs we are actually in the worst position. At least the likes of Spennymoor just simply said we cannot and will not play the remainder of the season very early on.

I don't think it will be too hard to show that liabilities for remainder of season > assets (cash). Just fear the appeals board, if they want to, will question "you justify not playing Boston because you couldn't continue the season, but you played Weymouth however many days later".
To which our argument will be the prize money on offer in the Trophy was a crucial source of income.

There were financial benefits to playing on in the Trophy (prize money), whereas playing more league games would’ve cost us a lot of money.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Old Git
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by Old Git » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:15 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:38 am
lo36789 wrote:Hopefully a little common sense does prevail here. There are so many variables and different responses by different clubs.

I do worry of all clubs we are actually in the worst position. At least the likes of Spennymoor just simply said we cannot and will not play the remainder of the season very early on.

I don't think it will be too hard to show that liabilities for remainder of season > assets (cash). Just fear the appeals board, if they want to, will question "you justify not playing Boston because you couldn't continue the season, but you played Weymouth however many days later".
To which our argument will be the prize money on offer in the Trophy was a crucial source of income.

There were financial benefits to playing on in the Trophy (prize money), whereas playing more league games would’ve cost us a lot of money.
That may well be the case but does not really support our health and safety argument about playing on as we were happy to risk it in the Trophy but not the League. I know the players were tested prior to the Hornchurch game but it could have been done for league games as well.
The financial argument is clear the moral one not so clear and I fear that may count against us. Hope not we will see.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:46 pm

Christ on a bike!

Do the league have rules on morals now?
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

Darlogramps
Posts: 5484
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Appeal

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:56 pm

Old Git wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:38 am
lo36789 wrote:Hopefully a little common sense does prevail here. There are so many variables and different responses by different clubs.

I do worry of all clubs we are actually in the worst position. At least the likes of Spennymoor just simply said we cannot and will not play the remainder of the season very early on.

I don't think it will be too hard to show that liabilities for remainder of season > assets (cash). Just fear the appeals board, if they want to, will question "you justify not playing Boston because you couldn't continue the season, but you played Weymouth however many days later".
To which our argument will be the prize money on offer in the Trophy was a crucial source of income.

There were financial benefits to playing on in the Trophy (prize money), whereas playing more league games would’ve cost us a lot of money.
That may well be the case but does not really support our health and safety argument about playing on as we were happy to risk it in the Trophy but not the League. I know the players were tested prior to the Hornchurch game but it could have been done for league games as well.
The financial argument is clear the moral one not so clear and I fear that may count against us. Hope not we will see.
As I see it though, the FA Trophy has no bearing on this case.

We were penalised for not playing the Boston game.
The fact we played on in the Trophy shouldn’t be relevant, as I don’t see how they can use another tournament, which isn’t anything to do with the National League as the FA administers it, as justification.

To my mind the National League should be judging this case based solely on the circumstances of the Boston game and none other.

If they do try and claim that, it smacks of them having made their mind up, and looking for evidence to justify their point, rather than objectively looking at the facts.

Moreover it’s important not to cherrypick one part of the case. Given we didn’t know if the league would finish early, we’d then have to prioritise the financial well-being of the club.

As there were measures in place to minimise the COVID risk to players and staff, the thought process had to be the financial risk of playing on was substantially higher than the risk of players catching COVID. I.E. The club was more likely to go into financial meltdown than players were to catch COVID.

So it’s important to look at the broad picture, rather than one aspect of the argument.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

H1987
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by H1987 » Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:00 pm

Quite right. I assume we consider there is a good chance of this being overturned, as I'd assume there's a cost to it.

I agree with the principle of appealing but I'm slightly surprised we are bothering, although I'm not sure what the substance of a 'suspended points deduction' really entails.

jjljks
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by jjljks » Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:12 pm

Have just seen our future Plan B. Screw the FA & UEFA, Darlo will be joining European Super League next season (provided we can get BM up to ESL standards). :thumbup:
Perhaps as founder members we could get some of the €3.5bn set aside for the infrastructure to redirect the water main under BM? :lol:

User avatar
Makka Pakka
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Newton Aycliffe

Re: Appeal

Post by Makka Pakka » Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:40 pm

I like the idea that someone had the brainwave ; "You know what football needs more of? ...More money".
"At a meeting held at the Grammar School on Friday last - Mr Phillip Wood M.A., in the chair - it was resolved to form an Association Football Club for Darlington and neighbourhood. The opinions of those present were so unanimous as to the desirability of this step, that a committee was formed to complete the organisation of the club, and Mr Craven, 17, Garden Street, was appointed secretary pro tem." - The Northern Echo, Monday 23rd July 1883

jjljks
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by jjljks » Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:27 am

ESL crumbled when they realised that DarloFC had been blackballed :lol:

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:32 am

Are Darlo part of the Dirty 17? Did we ask for an E.G.M. - Does anyone know?
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

rogerkay
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 5:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by rogerkay » Sat May 01, 2021 6:00 pm

I agree with the principle of appealing but I'm slightly surprised we are bothering, although I'm not sure what the substance of a 'suspended points deduction' really entails.


Kodi nox
Last edited by rogerkay on Sun May 02, 2021 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1929
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by don'tbuythesun » Sat May 01, 2021 10:52 pm

Apart from standing our ground against incompetence there's the significant sum of £2000 at stake.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sun May 02, 2021 7:41 am

rogerkay wrote:
Sat May 01, 2021 6:00 pm
I agree with the principle of appealing but I'm slightly surprised we are bothering, although I'm not sure what the substance of a 'suspended points deduction' really entails.

I don't think it means anything, it seems to be a punishment in name only.

I suppose when next season kicks off.
If there is another wave of C19.
And if fans are banned from grounds.
And if no financial help is forthcoming.
And the league at that stage is still run by idiotic people out of their depth or asleep.
Then clubs may have to stop playing again under similar circumstances.

A lot of "ifs" but .........
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

jjljks
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by jjljks » Mon May 03, 2021 4:48 am

Reckon that National League will punish us more than FA & Premier League punish Man United.

lo36789
Posts: 9339
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Appeal

Post by lo36789 » Mon May 03, 2021 8:42 am

jjljks wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 4:48 am
Reckon that National League will punish us more than FA & Premier League punish Man United.
It will be interesting.

The PL rules say a game cannot be postponed apart for 5 distinct reasons...

"L.12. Subject to Rules C.25 and C.29, a League Match shall not be postponed or

abandoned except:

L.12.1. when on the date fixed for it to be played either the Home Club or the Visiting Club is competing in a competition permitted by Rules L.9.1, L.9.2,
and L.9.3;
L.12.2. with the approval of or on the instructions of the officiating referee;
L.12.3. by order of the police;
L.12.4. by order of any other authority exercising its statutory powers to that effect; or
L.12.5. on the instructions of or with the prior written consent of the Board.Not sure the FA will do anything, unless they raise a game into disrepute charge."


If the GMP ordered the postponement then not sure the PL can fine them.

spen666
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by spen666 » Mon May 03, 2021 10:09 am

lo36789 wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 8:42 am
jjljks wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 4:48 am
Reckon that National League will punish us more than FA & Premier League punish Man United.
It will be interesting.

The PL rules say a game cannot be postponed apart for 5 distinct reasons...

"L.12. Subject to Rules C.25 and C.29, a League Match shall not be postponed or

abandoned except:

L.12.1. when on the date fixed for it to be played either the Home Club or the Visiting Club is competing in a competition permitted by Rules L.9.1, L.9.2,
and L.9.3;
L.12.2. with the approval of or on the instructions of the officiating referee;
L.12.3. by order of the police;
L.12.4. by order of any other authority exercising its statutory powers to that effect; or
L.12.5. on the instructions of or with the prior written consent of the Board.Not sure the FA will do anything, unless they raise a game into disrepute charge."


If the GMP ordered the postponement then not sure the PL can fine them.

I am sure they could still fine Man U because the allegation would be that Man U failed to provide a suitable, SAFE venue ( if saying game could not go ahead because of invasion) or alternatively for failing to control their fans.

For example rule 12.2 would come into play if there was crowd trouble before ko and referee called game off. In that situation club(s) would still be charged with failing to control fans

Even if they could fine Man U, whether they will dare fine one of the so called big clubs is a different matter. Man U could afford to litigate PL to distraction if they wanted to

lo36789
Posts: 9339
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Appeal

Post by lo36789 » Mon May 03, 2021 11:42 am

I assumed they would to be honest. Postponements at PL level are very rare.

I was under the impression that there was quite a heavy fine if they have a postponement for waterlogging / frozen pitches, never mind failing to have the right level of security.

I am not sure I believe the whole they won't take it out on the big clubs, especially after the past few weeks. They have removed the ECL 6 from all committees that they are members of in response to the recent actions.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon May 03, 2021 12:04 pm

spen666 wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 10:09 am
I am sure they could still fine Man U because the allegation would be that Man U failed to provide a suitable, SAFE venue ( if saying game could not go ahead because of invasion) or alternatively for failing to control their fans.

For example rule 12.2 would come into play if there was crowd trouble before ko and referee called game off. In that situation club(s) would still be charged with failing to control fans
No fans should have been there Spen. There was no 'venue" to be made safe. The game was being played for TV only.

It was a public order offence and a break in, Man Utd are not to blame.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

jjljks
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by jjljks » Mon May 03, 2021 3:22 pm

Be a laugh if Man U got banned from playing in Europe🤣. Bet that would make Glazers sell up

spen666
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Appeal

Post by spen666 » Mon May 03, 2021 3:44 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 12:04 pm
spen666 wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 10:09 am
I am sure they could still fine Man U because the allegation would be that Man U failed to provide a suitable, SAFE venue ( if saying game could not go ahead because of invasion) or alternatively for failing to control their fans.c
No fans should have been there Spen. There was no 'venue" to be made safe. The game was being played for TV only.

It was a public order offence and a break in, Man Utd are not to blame.

It was up to Manchester United to:
a) ensure the venue has no fans in it
b) to control its fans

The venue has to be safe for all those working there - ie players, match officials, staff etc. Its not just a duty to provide a safe venue for spectators. The fact it was on TV and not admitting paying spectators, does not mean it is not a venue

The situation is made worse for the club in thart they knew there was to be a protest at the ground and failed to have sufficient security to prevent the protestors accessing the into the ground and onto the pitch

I fully accept there were public order offences committed by the protestors. However, that does not exempt Manchester United from blame. In the same way as when fans riot at a game, the club are charged with failing to control their fans[even when it is an away game and the visiting club have no say over the policing/ stewarding of fans]

For example West Ham were charged 3 years ago after pitch invasion in protest against GSB ( again public order offences)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... cenes.html

or Arsenal & Birmingham charged in 2019
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/foo ... r-14136518

The rule re controlling fans may seem unfair, but its there and is used by the authorities


As for Manchester United not being to blame, the Independent newspaper has an article about it today, quoting Geoff Pearson who is described as
"one of England’s foremost researchers on football crowds and the handling of them"
. He says there was a significant failure of security by Manchester united
Whatever way we look at it, it’s ultimately a huge failure of security from Manchester United.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 41192.html

Post Reply