A Bitter pill to swallow.

plodder · Post by **plodder** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:39 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 927718.stm

Deducted 18 points but also if it holds in court definitely relegated.

Unfair in the extreme I feel.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:06 pm

where do they get 18 points from?

sluffy · Post by **sluffy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:09 pm

plodder wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 927718.stm

Deducted 18 points but also if it holds in court definitely relegated.

Unfair in the extreme I feel.

There seems to be a bit more to this story than we know.

The player who was not correctly registered (International clearance issue) James Robinson was at Accrington Stanley earlier in the season and although he never played in the first team had not correctly registered from a team in Iceland whom they signed him from. As Robinson never played first team footy for Stanley they are notAlso tliable for point deductions.

Also the FA has already looked at this case previously and concluded that Altringham had no case to answer!

Apparently Altringham can appeal to the FA the decision by the Conference's decission.

So it looks as though the appeal will be overturned!?

Add to all this that it looks Conference club Canvey are considering quitting the Conference (because of the Jeff King issue - the chap who owns them is pulling out) and Scarborough may be thrown out if they cant solve their administrational problems (apparently they have been in Administration for 3 years!?).

There seems to be a view that the penalty was given knowing full well that in the end Altringham will still be in the conference next season.

Certainly there are a few more twist and turns to come yet.

sluffy · Post by **sluffy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:21 pm

communistworkethic wrote:where do they get 18 points from?

I think that it is based on the points won when the incorrectly registered player was playing for them.

Leyther_Matt · Post by **Leyther_Matt** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:24 pm

Sluffy - shouldn't that be Altrincham?!

In 2003/04 there wasn't any teams relegated from the Conference with Margate being kicked out because their ground wasn't good enough, Telford going bust and one of the sides that was due for promotion failing to meet ground regulations - could be looking at a similar situation this season, although it doesn't change my view that the Conference may as well be comfortably "League Three" nowadays.

sluffy · Post by **sluffy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:36 pm

[quote="Leyther_Matt"]Sluffy - shouldn't that be Altrincham?![quote]

Yes sorry it should! I must have been spelling it wrongly for years!

Luna · Post by **Luna** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:53 pm

I've never understood why when a team goes into administration they are deducted 10 points? These teams are usually low in the league, hence their money troubles, so deducting 10 ofter mean's relegation, which puts them in even more trouble (case in point Wrexham last year, pretty safe, then lost 10 points and despite being so much better than teams 3/4 places out of the relegation zone they went down).

Oh, and, 1000 post's of utter crap!

Leyther_Matt · Post by **Leyther_Matt** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:01 pm

Luna wrote:I've never understood why when a team goes into administration they are deducted 10 points? These teams are usually low in the league, hence their money troubles, so deducting 10 ofter mean's relegation, which puts them in even more trouble (case in point Wrexham last year, pretty safe, then lost 10 points and despite being so much better than teams 3/4 places out of the relegation zone they went down).

Oh, and, 1000 post's of utter crap!

Think it was after Leicester went in to administration which allowed them to climb to the top of the league and almost a return to the Premiership in their first year back in Division One. Not completely up on the situation but I believe the ruling was a reaction to that situation.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:27 pm

essentially going in to administration alleviates your financial worries by meaning you don't have to immediately pay your creditors from the point you go into administartion and getting rid of the vast majority of your debt - i.e. you only pay a fraction of what you owe.

This had been used by some who were not in massive trouble as a way to bolster their financial position, somewhat unfairly. By putting the fine of ppoint in place you make taking this easy option much less palatable.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:28 pm

sluffy wrote:
Leyther_Matt wrote:Sluffy - shouldn't that be Altrincham?!
Yes sorry it should! I must have been spelling it wrongly for years!

Perhaps there are two places with similar names - fifty years ago I went to school in Hale, Cheshire, which I'm fairly certain was adjacent to Altringham. Or perhaps they have altered the spelling.

Leyther_Matt · Post by **Leyther_Matt** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:30 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
sluffy wrote:
Leyther_Matt wrote:Sluffy - shouldn't that be Altrincham?!
Yes sorry it should! I must have been spelling it wrongly for years!
Perhaps there are two places with similar names - fifty years ago I went to school in Hale, Cheshire, which I'm fairly certain was adjacent to Altringham. Or perhaps they have altered the spelling.

It is pronounced with the "g" sound, but is spelt with a "c" - either that or keep digging

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:31 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
sluffy wrote:
Leyther_Matt wrote:Sluffy - shouldn't that be Altrincham?!
Yes sorry it should! I must have been spelling it wrongly for years!
Perhaps there are two places with similar names - fifty years ago I went to school in Hale, Cheshire, which I'm fairly certain was adjacent to Altringham. Or perhaps they have altered the spelling.

Ah - I got curious and had to check - same place!

Altringham
View a map of Cheshire in 1610
View a map of Cheshire in 1830

Altringham or Altrincham, a small town in the parish of Bowden and county of Chester, near the Duke of Bridgewater’s canal from Manchester to Runcorn ; it is about 8 miles south-west of Manchester, and nearly 180 miles north-west from London. The neighbourhood supplies Manchester with fruit and vegetables ; and the salubrity of the air makes it a place of some resort for invalids. It is a neat and clean town, with a population in 1831 of 2,708. The chief manufactures are of cotton and worsted. There is a corporation, but the mayor has no jurisdiction. Besides a chapel for the members of the Established Church, there are two Methodist and one Unitarian meeting-house. The market is on Tuesday, and there are three fairs in the year.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:34 pm

I think that's proved what we've all thought for a long time - Monty is 185 years old.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:41 pm

communistworkethic wrote:I think that's proved what we've all thought for a long time - Monty is 185 years old.

You mean he's really WILSON...???

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:42 pm

communistworkethic wrote:I think that's proved what we've all thought for a long time - Monty is 185 years old.

A great exageration and a foul canard - I'm not a day over 110.

sluffy · Post by **sluffy** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:58 pm

sluffy wrote:
plodder wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 927718.stm

Deducted 18 points but also if it holds in court definitely relegated.

Unfair in the extreme I feel.
There seems to be a bit more to this story than we know.

The player who was not correctly registered (International clearance issue) James Robinson was at Accrington Stanley earlier in the season and although he never played in the first team had not correctly registered from a team in Iceland whom they signed him from. As Robinson never played first team footy for Stanley they are notAlso tliable for point deductions.

Also the FA has already looked at this case previously and concluded that Altringham had no case to answer!

Apparently Altringham can appeal to the FA the decision by the Conference's decission.

So it looks as though the appeal will be overturned!?

Add to all this that it looks Conference club Canvey are considering quitting the Conference (because of the Jeff King issue - the chap who owns them is pulling out) and Scarborough may be thrown out if they cant solve their administrational problems (apparently they have been in Administration for 3 years!?).

There seems to be a view that the penalty was given knowing full well that in the end Altringham will still be in the conference next season.

Certainly there are a few more twist and turns to come yet.

To those who wondered the outcome of this the following happened -

1 Canvey withdrew from the league as the clubs main financier pulled out of the club -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 770179.stm

2 Altrincham appeal fails and they are formally relegated (along with Canvey)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 009584.stm

3 Scarborough unable to prove that they have sorted out their financial position and thus relegated, with Altrincham being reinstated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 044276.stm

Altricham survive!!!

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:54 pm