Bob's Board - Chesterfield FC: Fa Cup - Bob's Board - Chesterfield FC

Jump to content

  • (21 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Fa Cup

#381 User is offline   moondog 

  • Legend
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 26,810
  • Joined: 09-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:07 PM

View PostSaltergateBlue01222, on 19 December 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

Dunno what form it came in, whether text or otherwise, but in its judgement the FA stated that written permission HAD been sent from Wolves to CFC and that CFC had received this permission but had failed to forward it to the FA. I wrote to the FA requesting clarity and they replied today.


Fair enough, Turner went off in the interview saying if I remember correctly "the FA said we should have got something in writing, but isn't a text in writing"

View PostDema Reborn, on 19 December 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

http://www.thefa.com...-to-be-replayed .....there is a link here for the findings,but i am still sure Wolves should have informed the FA in writing as well....


link direct to PDF document here

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20SettingsMy%20Documents/Downloads/chesterfield-fc-full-decision-with-reasons.pdf
0

#382 Guest_Dema Reborn_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:16 PM

View Postmoondog, on 19 December 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

Fair enough, Turner went off in the interview saying if I remember correctly "the FA said we should have got something in writing, but isn't a text in writing"



link direct to PDF document here

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/My%20Documents/Downloads/chesterfield-fc-full-decision-with-reasons.pdf


Don't think your link works Mark as that goes direct to your computer,that's why included it from the FA webpage....
0

#383 User is offline   Mr Mercury 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 35,419
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My family and Chesterfield then anything else that I care to chance my arm at.

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:19 PM

View Postmoondog, on 19 December 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

Fair enough, Turner went off in the interview saying if I remember correctly "the FA said we should have got something in writing, but isn't a text in writing"



link direct to PDF document here

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/My%20Documents/Downloads/chesterfield-fc-full-decision-with-reasons.pdf

The more Turner says on the matter the more I shake my head.
BTW I hope Freelander2 has requested a personnal hearing after ACs post the other night..BTW Ashley im cooking steaks tonight so half a bottle of White whilst cooking and a good Shiraz whilst dining..get ready Bobs Board I won't be able to hold my thunder tonght!
East stand second class citizen.
0

#384 User is offline   moondog 

  • Legend
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 26,810
  • Joined: 09-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:28 PM

View PostDema Reborn, on 19 December 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

Don't think your link works Mark as that goes direct to your computer,that's why included it from the FA webpage....


Fair enough Keith, I've managed to cut and paste it

THE FA CHALLENGE CUP

SECOND ROUND PROPER

MILTON KEYNES DONS v CHESTERFIELD

SATURDAY 6 DECEMBER 2014

THE FA CHALLENGE CUP

SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING

HELD AT THE FA OFFICES

WEMBLEY STADIUM, LONDON, HA9 0WS

ON MONDAY 15 DECEMBER 2014

COMMENCING AT 12.00PM

Present: Messrs Andy Ambler (in the Chair), Keith Lamb andJeff Mostyn

Messrs Steve Clark,Chris Darnell representing The FA Competitions Department

Chris Turner, SallySwain, Paul Cook and Graham Bean representing Chesterfield

FC



Purpose of Hearing

To adjudicate on the Second Round Proper tie, Milton KeynesDons v Chesterfield, played at Milton KeynesDons on Saturday 6 December 2014, following a charge issued against Chesterfield in relation to the eligibility of GeorgMargreitter, who played in the tie for Chesterfieldwithout being correctly qualified in accordance with FA Challenge Cup Rule15(j).



In accordance with FA Challenge Cup Competition Rule 16(a),the Professional Game Board shall have the power to call upon a player, and/orthe Club to which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that theplayer is qualified according to the Competition Rules. Pursuant to Rule 1(d) ofthe Rules of The FA Challenge Cup, and under the provisions of Rule 1(g), theSub Committee has the power to exercise all powers of the Professional GameBoard of The FA in relation to this matter.

In addition, pursuant to Rule 16(b), where an ineligibleplayer plays for a Club in a Competition match, the Professional Game Boardshall remove the Club from the Competition, and may impose further penaltiesagainst the Club.



And subject to Rule 16©, where the Club satisfies theProfessional Game Board that the Club (or any of its officers) did not know andcould not reasonably have known, even had it made every reasonable enquiry(with the exercise of the utmost caution), that the player was ineligible, theClub shall not be removed from the Competition but may still be subject to anyother penalty (e.g. fine, ordered to replay the match).

Having given careful consideration to the submissions of Chesterfield, The FAChallenge Cup SubCommittee made the following findings of fact and on the basisof those findings reached its decision

.

Findings of Fact



1. That Georg Margreitter was named on the Chesterfield TeamSheet and Match Report Form as playing at number 29 in the Second Round Properagainst Milton Keynes Dons on Saturday 6 December 2014.



2. That the matter came to the attention of The FA by phonecall notification from Chesterfieldreceived on Monday 8 December 2014.

3. That Georg Margreitter was on emergency loan to Chesterfield fromWolverhampton Wanderers, for the period of 12 September 2014 to 13 December2014 inclusive.



4. That written permission was given for the player to playin The FA Cup by Wolverhampton Wanderers to Chesterfield via text message on Monday 1December 2014 prior to the 12 noon deadline for the 2nd Rd Proper on Friday 5 December 2014.



5. That a copy of the written permission was not received byThe FA by the 12 noon deadline for the 2nd Rd Proper on Friday 5 December 2014meaning that Georg Margreitter was not correctly registered in accordance withFA Cup Rule 15(j) and was therefore not eligible to play in the tie on Saturday6 December 2014 for Chesterfield.



6. That on Monday 1 December 2014 and Friday 5 December2014, The FA sent a notification by email to all clubs in the Second RoundProper, including Chesterfield, reminding all clubs (in bold, large-fontcapitals) that:

CLUBS MUST ENSURE THAT ALL PLAYERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO PLAY INTHE COMPETITION BY CHECKING THEY ARE NOT UNDER SUSPENSION AND TO MAKE SURE THEYARE CORRECTLY REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPETITION RULE 15



Decision



1. On the Second Round Proper tie, Milton Keynes Dons v Chesterfield, played at Milton Keynes Dons on Saturday 6December 2014, following a charge issued against Chesterfield,in relation to the eligibility of Georg Margreitter who played in the tie for Chesterfield without beingcorrectly qualified in accordance with FA Challenge Cup Rule 15(j).



2. The Sub-Committee noted that pursuant to FA Challenge CupRule 16(a) they had the power to call upon a player, and/or the Club to whichhe is registered, or for which he played, to prove that the player wasqualified according to the Competition Rules.

In addition, pursuant to Rule 1(d):



“take such action and make such decisions, orders, rulings andimpose such penalties as it deems necessary and following such procedures as itconsiders appropriate and such shall, subject to Rule 31, be final and bindingon all Participants.”

And, additionally pursuant to Rule 1(g):

“in addition to any other action or penalty, theProfessional Game Board shall have the power to disqualify any competing Club,or Player for any competing Club(s), which it determines to have breached theRules of The Association or the Competition Rules (and any rules or regulationsissued pursuant to the Competition Rules), and the decision of the ProfessionalGame Board shall be final and binding.”



And, that this position is reinforced by the provisions ofFA Challenge Cup Rule 16(b): “subject to Rule 16© below, where an ineligibleplayer plays for a Club in a Competition match, the Professional Game Boardshall remove the Club from the Competition, and may impose further penaltiesagainst the Club.”

“however, where the Club satisfies the National Game Boardthat the Club (or any of its officers) did not know and could not reasonablyhave known, even had it made every reasonable enquiry (with the exercise of theutmost caution), that the player was ineligible, the Club shall not be removedfrom the Competition but may still be subject to any other penalty (e.g. fine,ordered to replay the match).



3. The Sub-Committee considered submissions made on behalfof Chesterfield and the grounds of mitigationput forward by Chesterfieldthat included:



a. that Chesterfieldunderstood the rules relating to The FA Challenge Cup Competition and believedthat Georg Margreitter was registered correctly.



b. that, whilst Chesterfieldacknowledged that the rules of the Competition had been

breached, Chesterfieldmade a plea for leniency on the grounds that they saw the

matter as a technical breach as permission had been grantedfor the player to play

from his loaning club but just not submitted to The FA inaccordance with the

Competition Rules.



c. that no deliberate intent to deceive or gain advantagehad been shown by

Chesterfield.



d. that Chesterfieldhad acted before and during the hearing with honesty, integrity and transparencyat all times.



Further to the above, the Sub-Committee concluded that aspermission had been provided by Wolverhampton Wanderers to Chesterfield priorto 12 noon on Friday 5 December 2014 and that because Chesterfield did notdeliberately act in an underhand way so as to circumvent the rules of theCompetition by bringing the matter to the attention of The FA, theSub-Committee decided that Chesterfield should not be removed from theCompetition and ordered the tie to be replayed at Milton Keynes Dons on theearliest available date as directed by The FA.



And, whilst the Sub-Committee were satisfied with theevidence submitted by Chesterfield,the decision to order the tie to be replayed was deemed to be the fairestoutcome in this unique situation in order to protect the integrity of theworld’s oldest and most prestigious cup competition.



4. Furthermore, Chesterfield were made responsible for thecosts of the hearing but no further punishment was awarded as ordering a replaywas deemed sufficient punishment

.

5. The Sub-Committee noted that the decision of theSub-Committee was final and binding on all parties.



The meeting ended at 1.45pm


0

#385 User is offline   whittman 

  • Key Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,275
  • Joined: 27-April 12

Posted 19 December 2014 - 09:03 PM

View Postmoondog, on 19 December 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

Fair enough Keith, I've managed to cut and paste it

THE FA CHALLENGE CUP

SECOND ROUND PROPER

MILTON KEYNES DONS v CHESTERFIELD

SATURDAY 6 DECEMBER 2014

THE FA CHALLENGE CUP

SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING

HELD AT THE FA OFFICES

WEMBLEY STADIUM, LONDON, HA9 0WS

ON MONDAY 15 DECEMBER 2014

COMMENCING AT 12.00PM

Present: Messrs Andy Ambler (in the Chair), Keith Lamb andJeff Mostyn

Messrs Steve Clark,Chris Darnell representing The FA Competitions Department

Chris Turner, SallySwain, Paul Cook and Graham Bean representing Chesterfield

FC



Purpose of Hearing

To adjudicate on the Second Round Proper tie, Milton KeynesDons v Chesterfield, played at Milton KeynesDons on Saturday 6 December 2014, following a charge issued against Chesterfield in relation to the eligibility of GeorgMargreitter, who played in the tie for Chesterfieldwithout being correctly qualified in accordance with FA Challenge Cup Rule15(j).



In accordance with FA Challenge Cup Competition Rule 16(a),the Professional Game Board shall have the power to call upon a player, and/orthe Club to which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that theplayer is qualified according to the Competition Rules. Pursuant to Rule 1(d) ofthe Rules of The FA Challenge Cup, and under the provisions of Rule 1(g), theSub Committee has the power to exercise all powers of the Professional GameBoard of The FA in relation to this matter.

In addition, pursuant to Rule 16(b), where an ineligibleplayer plays for a Club in a Competition match, the Professional Game Boardshall remove the Club from the Competition, and may impose further penaltiesagainst the Club.



And subject to Rule 16©, where the Club satisfies theProfessional Game Board that the Club (or any of its officers) did not know andcould not reasonably have known, even had it made every reasonable enquiry(with the exercise of the utmost caution), that the player was ineligible, theClub shall not be removed from the Competition but may still be subject to anyother penalty (e.g. fine, ordered to replay the match).

Having given careful consideration to the submissions of Chesterfield, The FAChallenge Cup SubCommittee made the following findings of fact and on the basisof those findings reached its decision

.

Findings of Fact



1. That Georg Margreitter was named on the Chesterfield TeamSheet and Match Report Form as playing at number 29 in the Second Round Properagainst Milton Keynes Dons on Saturday 6 December 2014.



2. That the matter came to the attention of The FA by phonecall notification from Chesterfieldreceived on Monday 8 December 2014.

3. That Georg Margreitter was on emergency loan to Chesterfield fromWolverhampton Wanderers, for the period of 12 September 2014 to 13 December2014 inclusive.



4. That written permission was given for the player to playin The FA Cup by Wolverhampton Wanderers to Chesterfield via text message on Monday 1December 2014 prior to the 12 noon deadline for the 2nd Rd Proper on Friday 5 December 2014.



5. That a copy of the written permission was not received byThe FA by the 12 noon deadline for the 2nd Rd Proper on Friday 5 December 2014meaning that Georg Margreitter was not correctly registered in accordance withFA Cup Rule 15(j) and was therefore not eligible to play in the tie on Saturday6 December 2014 for Chesterfield.



6. That on Monday 1 December 2014 and Friday 5 December2014, The FA sent a notification by email to all clubs in the Second RoundProper, including Chesterfield, reminding all clubs (in bold, large-fontcapitals) that:

CLUBS MUST ENSURE THAT ALL PLAYERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO PLAY INTHE COMPETITION BY CHECKING THEY ARE NOT UNDER SUSPENSION AND TO MAKE SURE THEYARE CORRECTLY REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPETITION RULE 15



Decision



1. On the Second Round Proper tie, Milton Keynes Dons v Chesterfield, played at Milton Keynes Dons on Saturday 6December 2014, following a charge issued against Chesterfield,in relation to the eligibility of Georg Margreitter who played in the tie for Chesterfield without beingcorrectly qualified in accordance with FA Challenge Cup Rule 15(j).



2. The Sub-Committee noted that pursuant to FA Challenge CupRule 16(a) they had the power to call upon a player, and/or the Club to whichhe is registered, or for which he played, to prove that the player wasqualified according to the Competition Rules.

In addition, pursuant to Rule 1(d):



“take such action and make such decisions, orders, rulings andimpose such penalties as it deems necessary and following such procedures as itconsiders appropriate and such shall, subject to Rule 31, be final and bindingon all Participants.”

And, additionally pursuant to Rule 1(g):

“in addition to any other action or penalty, theProfessional Game Board shall have the power to disqualify any competing Club,or Player for any competing Club(s), which it determines to have breached theRules of The Association or the Competition Rules (and any rules or regulationsissued pursuant to the Competition Rules), and the decision of the ProfessionalGame Board shall be final and binding.”



And, that this position is reinforced by the provisions ofFA Challenge Cup Rule 16(b): “subject to Rule 16© below, where an ineligibleplayer plays for a Club in a Competition match, the Professional Game Boardshall remove the Club from the Competition, and may impose further penaltiesagainst the Club.”

“however, where the Club satisfies the National Game Boardthat the Club (or any of its officers) did not know and could not reasonablyhave known, even had it made every reasonable enquiry (with the exercise of theutmost caution), that the player was ineligible, the Club shall not be removedfrom the Competition but may still be subject to any other penalty (e.g. fine,ordered to replay the match).



3. The Sub-Committee considered submissions made on behalfof Chesterfield and the grounds of mitigationput forward by Chesterfieldthat included:



a. that Chesterfieldunderstood the rules relating to The FA Challenge Cup Competition and believedthat Georg Margreitter was registered correctly.



b. that, whilst Chesterfieldacknowledged that the rules of the Competition had been

breached, Chesterfieldmade a plea for leniency on the grounds that they saw the

matter as a technical breach as permission had been grantedfor the player to play

from his loaning club but just not submitted to The FA inaccordance with the

Competition Rules.



c. that no deliberate intent to deceive or gain advantagehad been shown by

Chesterfield.



d. that Chesterfieldhad acted before and during the hearing with honesty, integrity and transparencyat all times.



Further to the above, the Sub-Committee concluded that aspermission had been provided by Wolverhampton Wanderers to Chesterfield priorto 12 noon on Friday 5 December 2014 and that because Chesterfield did notdeliberately act in an underhand way so as to circumvent the rules of theCompetition by bringing the matter to the attention of The FA, theSub-Committee decided that Chesterfield should not be removed from theCompetition and ordered the tie to be replayed at Milton Keynes Dons on theearliest available date as directed by The FA.



And, whilst the Sub-Committee were satisfied with theevidence submitted by Chesterfield,the decision to order the tie to be replayed was deemed to be the fairestoutcome in this unique situation in order to protect the integrity of theworld’s oldest and most prestigious cup competition.



4. Furthermore, Chesterfield were made responsible for thecosts of the hearing but no further punishment was awarded as ordering a replaywas deemed sufficient punishment

.

5. The Sub-Committee noted that the decision of theSub-Committee was final and binding on all parties.



The meeting ended at 1.45pm

So if Wolves text was deemed written permission as I see it all we had to do was forward the text message to the FA and we would have been in the clear?


UNBELIEVEABLE ON OUR PART THEN
0

#386 User is offline   Heavy_Soul 

  • Key Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,318
  • Joined: 22-July 08
  • Location:Chesterfield

Posted 19 December 2014 - 09:08 PM

View Postwhittman, on 19 December 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

So if Wolves text was deemed written permission as I see it all we had to do was forward the text message to the FA and we would have been in the clear?


UNBELIEVEABLE ON OUR PART THEN


The text was probably sent to cookie who was in the barley now at the time :windup
Every need got an ego to feed
0

#387 User is offline   starsky72 

  • First Team Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,241
  • Joined: 30-April 11

Posted 19 December 2014 - 09:09 PM

So... we were aware enough to request the permission from Wolves but not aware enough to forward it to the FA??
0

#388 User is offline   The Rev. 

  • First Team Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,136
  • Joined: 22-July 14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lincolnshire
  • Interests:Writer; Football: Boxing: Supporting the Spireites.

Posted 19 December 2014 - 09:14 PM

View Poststarsky72, on 19 December 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

So... we were aware enough to request the permission from Wolves but not aware enough to forward it to the FA??

Looks that way according to the official FA report.
0

#389 User is offline   Elmer Fudd's Thick Lip 

  • The Ayatollah
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,701
  • Joined: 09-May 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dave's top lip
  • Interests:Big fan of Terry Thomas and Fu Manchu.

    Partial to the odd beerd!!

Posted 20 December 2014 - 02:19 PM

View PostS41Spireite, on 16 December 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

They didn't stay overnight for the first match. We passed them on the M1 and we weren't early! The team bus arrived about 2pm.

Doesn't matter anyway. Pretty sure that the hosting team pays for the away teams accommodation in the FA Cup.
Mug?? Being wrong never gets boring!
0

#390 User is offline   moondog 

  • Legend
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 26,810
  • Joined: 09-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield

Posted 20 December 2014 - 03:18 PM

View PostDave Wallers, on 20 December 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Doesn't matter anyway. Pretty sure that the hosting team pays for the away teams accommodation in the FA Cup.


Not quite, it comes out of the match expenses as net gate receipts are shared equally.

To apply for an overnight stay travelling time has to be above five hours including a stop of not more than 45 minutes
0

#391 User is offline   Elmer Fudd's Thick Lip 

  • The Ayatollah
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,701
  • Joined: 09-May 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dave's top lip
  • Interests:Big fan of Terry Thomas and Fu Manchu.

    Partial to the odd beerd!!

Posted 20 December 2014 - 03:30 PM

View Postmoondog, on 20 December 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

Not quite, it comes out of the match expenses as net gate receipts are shared equally.

To apply for an overnight stay travelling time has to be above five hours including a stop of not more than 45 minutes

Ah right thanks Mark. I knew there was some kind of quirky rule regarding travelling teams in the FA Cup. Cheers for clarifying.
Mug?? Being wrong never gets boring!
0

#392 User is offline   Spire2003 

  • Youth Team Player
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 299
  • Joined: 28-July 05

Posted 20 December 2014 - 05:14 PM

So if Wolves text was deemed written permission as I see it all we had to do was forward the text message to the FA and we would have been in the clear?


UNBELIEVEABLE ON OUR PART THEN

Makes it worse when you consider we had word from Wolves on Monday so had all week to let FA know.
[/quote]

This post has been edited by Spire2003: 20 December 2014 - 05:14 PM

0

#393 User is offline   jack'smyboy 

  • First Team Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,883
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 20 December 2014 - 07:01 PM

View Posttrickytrevsfanclub, on 17 December 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Nope, Morsy will have served his suspension by then.


I forgot about Coventry! Nice as Drew is, I can't see it being a hit if he has to do YS solo.

View PostBilly Bob, on 17 December 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

Have you asked about this marcia? I emailed Ian yesterday when i saw the new fixture and he said he had emailed chris turner and would let me know how it impacted it. Suggested changing times or something, but we certainly wont be going if theres no players there . What a fiasco!!


An early start, the usual act, and then the buffet, is fine with us. If need be, a tour of the stadium could fill any gap.
0

#394 User is offline   The Rev. 

  • First Team Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,136
  • Joined: 22-July 14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lincolnshire
  • Interests:Writer; Football: Boxing: Supporting the Spireites.

Posted 20 December 2014 - 07:01 PM

View PostSpire2003, on 20 December 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

So if Wolves text was deemed written permission as I see it all we had to do was forward the text message to the FA and we would have been in the clear?


UNBELIEVEABLE ON OUR PART THEN

Makes it worse when you consider we had word from Wolves on Monday so had all week to let FA know.


....and we had to pay the costs of the FA Hearing! :huh:
0

#395 User is offline   martatcross 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11,105
  • Joined: 08-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:clay cross

Posted 21 December 2014 - 10:13 AM

Wonder how much this cost us the cost of the hearing is paid by CFC bet that didnt come cheap either
Can't salute yer can't find a flag if that don't suit yer that's a drag
0

#396 User is offline   Westbars Spireite 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 63,288
  • Joined: 18-September 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield, Derbyshire
  • Interests:Chesterfield FC, cricket, beer

Posted 21 December 2014 - 10:25 AM

Graham Bean?
0

#397 User is offline   frearsghost 

  • First Team Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,721
  • Joined: 28-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 December 2014 - 10:40 AM

View Postmoondog, on 19 December 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

Fair enough Keith, I've managed to cut and paste it

THE FA CHALLENGE CUP

SECOND ROUND PROPER

MILTON KEYNES DONS v CHESTERFIELD

SATURDAY 6 DECEMBER 2014

THE FA CHALLENGE CUP

SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING

HELD AT THE FA OFFICES

WEMBLEY STADIUM, LONDON, HA9 0WS

ON MONDAY 15 DECEMBER 2014

COMMENCING AT 12.00PM

Present: Messrs Andy Ambler (in the Chair), Keith Lamb andJeff Mostyn

Messrs Steve Clark,Chris Darnell representing The FA Competitions Department

Chris Turner, SallySwain, Paul Cook and Graham Bean representing Chesterfield

FC



Purpose of Hearing

To adjudicate on the Second Round Proper tie, Milton KeynesDons v Chesterfield, played at Milton KeynesDons on Saturday 6 December 2014, following a charge issued against Chesterfield in relation to the eligibility of GeorgMargreitter, who played in the tie for Chesterfieldwithout being correctly qualified in accordance with FA Challenge Cup Rule15(j).



In accordance with FA Challenge Cup Competition Rule 16(a),the Professional Game Board shall have the power to call upon a player, and/orthe Club to which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that theplayer is qualified according to the Competition Rules. Pursuant to Rule 1(d) ofthe Rules of The FA Challenge Cup, and under the provisions of Rule 1(g), theSub Committee has the power to exercise all powers of the Professional GameBoard of The FA in relation to this matter.

In addition, pursuant to Rule 16(b), where an ineligibleplayer plays for a Club in a Competition match, the Professional Game Boardshall remove the Club from the Competition, and may impose further penaltiesagainst the Club.



And subject to Rule 16©, where the Club satisfies theProfessional Game Board that the Club (or any of its officers) did not know andcould not reasonably have known, even had it made every reasonable enquiry(with the exercise of the utmost caution), that the player was ineligible, theClub shall not be removed from the Competition but may still be subject to anyother penalty (e.g. fine, ordered to replay the match).

Having given careful consideration to the submissions of Chesterfield, The FAChallenge Cup SubCommittee made the following findings of fact and on the basisof those findings reached its decision

.

Findings of Fact



1. That Georg Margreitter was named on the Chesterfield TeamSheet and Match Report Form as playing at number 29 in the Second Round Properagainst Milton Keynes Dons on Saturday 6 December 2014.



2. That the matter came to the attention of The FA by phonecall notification from Chesterfieldreceived on Monday 8 December 2014.

3. That Georg Margreitter was on emergency loan to Chesterfield fromWolverhampton Wanderers, for the period of 12 September 2014 to 13 December2014 inclusive.



4. That written permission was given for the player to playin The FA Cup by Wolverhampton Wanderers to Chesterfield via text message on Monday 1December 2014 prior to the 12 noon deadline for the 2nd Rd Proper on Friday 5 December 2014.



5. That a copy of the written permission was not received byThe FA by the 12 noon deadline for the 2nd Rd Proper on Friday 5 December 2014meaning that Georg Margreitter was not correctly registered in accordance withFA Cup Rule 15(j) and was therefore not eligible to play in the tie on Saturday6 December 2014 for Chesterfield.



6. That on Monday 1 December 2014 and Friday 5 December2014, The FA sent a notification by email to all clubs in the Second RoundProper, including Chesterfield, reminding all clubs (in bold, large-fontcapitals) that:

CLUBS MUST ENSURE THAT ALL PLAYERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO PLAY INTHE COMPETITION BY CHECKING THEY ARE NOT UNDER SUSPENSION AND TO MAKE SURE THEYARE CORRECTLY REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPETITION RULE 15



Decision



1. On the Second Round Proper tie, Milton Keynes Dons v Chesterfield, played at Milton Keynes Dons on Saturday 6December 2014, following a charge issued against Chesterfield,in relation to the eligibility of Georg Margreitter who played in the tie for Chesterfield without beingcorrectly qualified in accordance with FA Challenge Cup Rule 15(j).



2. The Sub-Committee noted that pursuant to FA Challenge CupRule 16(a) they had the power to call upon a player, and/or the Club to whichhe is registered, or for which he played, to prove that the player wasqualified according to the Competition Rules.

In addition, pursuant to Rule 1(d):



“take such action and make such decisions, orders, rulings andimpose such penalties as it deems necessary and following such procedures as itconsiders appropriate and such shall, subject to Rule 31, be final and bindingon all Participants.”

And, additionally pursuant to Rule 1(g):

“in addition to any other action or penalty, theProfessional Game Board shall have the power to disqualify any competing Club,or Player for any competing Club(s), which it determines to have breached theRules of The Association or the Competition Rules (and any rules or regulationsissued pursuant to the Competition Rules), and the decision of the ProfessionalGame Board shall be final and binding.”



And, that this position is reinforced by the provisions ofFA Challenge Cup Rule 16(b): “subject to Rule 16© below, where an ineligibleplayer plays for a Club in a Competition match, the Professional Game Boardshall remove the Club from the Competition, and may impose further penaltiesagainst the Club.”

“however, where the Club satisfies the National Game Boardthat the Club (or any of its officers) did not know and could not reasonablyhave known, even had it made every reasonable enquiry (with the exercise of theutmost caution), that the player was ineligible, the Club shall not be removedfrom the Competition but may still be subject to any other penalty (e.g. fine,ordered to replay the match).



3. The Sub-Committee considered submissions made on behalfof Chesterfield and the grounds of mitigationput forward by Chesterfieldthat included:



a. that Chesterfieldunderstood the rules relating to The FA Challenge Cup Competition and believedthat Georg Margreitter was registered correctly.



b. that, whilst Chesterfieldacknowledged that the rules of the Competition had been

breached, Chesterfieldmade a plea for leniency on the grounds that they saw the

matter as a technical breach as permission had been grantedfor the player to play

from his loaning club but just not submitted to The FA inaccordance with the

Competition Rules.



c. that no deliberate intent to deceive or gain advantagehad been shown by

Chesterfield.



d. that Chesterfieldhad acted before and during the hearing with honesty, integrity and transparencyat all times.



Further to the above, the Sub-Committee concluded that aspermission had been provided by Wolverhampton Wanderers to Chesterfield priorto 12 noon on Friday 5 December 2014 and that because Chesterfield did notdeliberately act in an underhand way so as to circumvent the rules of theCompetition by bringing the matter to the attention of The FA, theSub-Committee decided that Chesterfield should not be removed from theCompetition and ordered the tie to be replayed at Milton Keynes Dons on theearliest available date as directed by The FA.



And, whilst the Sub-Committee were satisfied with theevidence submitted by Chesterfield,the decision to order the tie to be replayed was deemed to be the fairestoutcome in this unique situation in order to protect the integrity of theworld’s oldest and most prestigious cup competition.



4. Furthermore, Chesterfield were made responsible for thecosts of the hearing but no further punishment was awarded as ordering a replaywas deemed sufficient punishment

.

5. The Sub-Committee noted that the decision of theSub-Committee was final and binding on all parties.



The meeting ended at 1.45pm


Thanks for that Mark. It's amazing what comes out. Turner said everyone at Wolves, except their admin, new that permission had been granted and that's why written permission had not been sent by them. It now seems that Wolves did sent written permission meaning the fault was ours.

I've had enough of this now.
0

#398 User is offline   Westbars Spireite 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 63,288
  • Joined: 18-September 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield, Derbyshire
  • Interests:Chesterfield FC, cricket, beer

Posted 21 December 2014 - 10:46 AM

It could be nothing other than our fault.
0

#399 User is offline   Johnnyspireite7 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15,351
  • Joined: 20-August 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halfway from the Gutter to the Stars
  • Interests:Town, Formula 1, England & Yorkshire Cricket.

Posted 21 December 2014 - 02:16 PM

View PostWestbars Spireite, on 21 December 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Graham Bean?

Isn't he the FA Compliance Officer who did the investigation into the Brown Affair?
"Do you think I'm here for your amusement" & good riddance to bad rubbish
0

#400 User is offline   Mr Mercury 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 35,419
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My family and Chesterfield then anything else that I care to chance my arm at.

Posted 21 December 2014 - 02:42 PM

View PostJohnnyspireite7, on 21 December 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

Isn't he the FA Compliance Officer who did the investigation into the Brown Affair?

I thought he was a chap who drives an old Gteen mini and has a teddy bear as best mate! My mistake .
East stand second class citizen.
0

Share this topic:


  • (21 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users