Rotherham's points deduction verdict tomorrow....

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,749]

....apparantly.

The Football League are probably conveniently waiting to see the outcome of the Millwall game tonight before deciding whether to dock them points.

But they "could" go from being 4 points clear of the relegation zone to 2 points adrift this time tomorrow, which would make Saturdays match a very different occasion?

[Hucks6 169]

Have faith Norwich will be to good for them

[Making Plans 936]

If we are worried about Rotherham, whatever the outcome of the verdict, then we''re in big trouble

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,749]

blackburn 2-0 millwall.

now call me Mr Cynical but as I eluded to earlier,after this result tonight, I''d suggest that Rotherham are now more likely to be deducted points than had Millwall had won tonight?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]blackburn 2-0 millwall.

now call me Mr Cynical but as I eluded to earlier,after this result tonight, I''d suggest that Rotherham are now more likely to be deducted points than had Millwall had won tonight?[/quote]If the facts are are outlined, that Rotherham played an ineligible player all through a crucial 1-0 win, then it was always hard to see them avoiding being docked three points. But tribunals can sometimes come to strange decisions.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Depends on why the player was ineligible and the perceived intent from the club.

When Sunderland fielded the ineligible Ji Dong-Won last season it was a paperwork error which Sunderland discovered and confessed to the Premier League - this ''good intent'' was the reason they avoided a points deduction.

If it is felt Rotherham have tried to conceal the player''s ineligibility for a sporting gain, or knowingly played an ineligible player they can expect a points deduction. If the error was made in mistake, and the club confessed to it themselves they may only get a fine.

[Tumbleweed 106]

Since the consensus seems to be that we are a bit rubbish at breaking down a massed defence then surely a points deduction would be a good thing for us? Nothing better than a poor team trying to force it against us while we do our now-common awayday thing and exploit all that nice juicy space behind them.

[......and Smith must score. 1,342]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Depends on why the player was ineligible and the perceived intent from the club. ....

If it is felt Rotherham have tried to conceal the player''s ineligibility for a sporting gain, or knowingly played an ineligible player they can expect a points deduction. If the error was made in mistake, and the club confessed to it themselves they may only get a fine.[/quote]After the mess Steve Evans got himself into when he was manager at Boston I''d be very surprised if it was anything other than an administrative error.That said unless you''re a Premier League team that seems to count for diddly squat.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

The Premier League and Football League look at their cases separately so will quite naturally come up with different verdicts. I don''t think there is some inherit pro-Premier League bias going on.

Blackpool were fined for a very similar case earlier in the season due to an error made when renewing a players loan period.

Without knowing the ins and outs of this case speculating on what may or may not have happened is pointless.

I''m sure which ever verdict is dished out fans will be furious and say the governing bodies are bias against them.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Depends on why the player was ineligible and the perceived intent from the club.

When Sunderland fielded the ineligible Ji Dong-Won last season it was a paperwork error which Sunderland discovered and confessed to the Premier League - this ''good intent'' was the reason they avoided a points deduction.

If it is felt Rotherham have tried to conceal the player''s ineligibility for a sporting gain, or knowingly played an ineligible player they can expect a points deduction. If the error was made in mistake, and the club confessed to it themselves they may only get a fine.[/quote]Bethnal, I take your point about the Sunderland case. From reading about that, the club didn''t realise they needed to renew international clearance. An understandable error, perhaps.With Rotherham, looking at that, it was reported on March 7 that this player had been signed on a 28-day loan. Counting March 7 as the first day, that meant the loan ran up to and including Friday, April 3. It is hard to see how anyone at Rotherham could justifiably think he was still eligible for the game in question, on Monday April 6.I am not saying Rotherham knew he was ineligible, but that they should have done. You can argue that in Sunderland''s case it was such an obscure requirement they might have been forgiven, but with Rotherham all they had to do was count off 28 days.There are three problems with the argument that clubs should only be fined rather than docked pints if the mistake is an honest - albeit  stupid  - one rather than deliberate. Firstly, you end up in very subjective territory trying to decide the point at which honest stupidity is so stupid it can''t  be forgiven. You also have to work out if the "honest mistake" argument is genuine or something thought up later. Without going back now into the details, QPR''s defence, which was on those lines, was a touch on the suspect side.Thirdly, the bottom line is that, whatever the reason, a club has profited or potentially profited by way of an ineligible player, while everyone else is sticking to the rules, no doubt to their detriment sometimes.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Many years ago I was secretary of club at a much MUCH lower level and we were deducted points for fielding an ineligible player. I was not aware he was ineligible but it was felt that I should have made it my business to be aware. This is why I have little sympathy with pro clubs who break the rules. In my case I was a working man doing the administration in my own time. These clubs employ people to fdo it. What seems like a genuine oversight is no such thing in these circumstances.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Have the Football League set a precedent, at least for this season, by "only" fining Blackpool £30k?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29993867

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]Have the Football League set a precedent, at least for this season, by "only" fining Blackpool £30k?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29993867

[/quote]I''m not sure that is a precedent. There is one massive difference. Blackpool lost their game. Rotherham won theirs.

[The Phantom 0]

^ not the sharpest tool in the box

[Katie Borkins 1]

Mmm! Best I make no further contributions to this thread.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

So, no announcement yesterday then. I heard on the radio on Tuesday it was supposed to be announced yesterday as well. I wonder what the hold up is?The cynic in me thinks the FA is trying to wait until a points deduction won''t matter in the relegation battle, thus not to make too much controversy - a situation which may not happen.Surely they can''t have this drag on much longer.

[shefcanary 2,402]

Remember how long that QPR decision was drawn out in our promotion season - weren''t it only decided just before the last match?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="shefcanary"]Remember how long that QPR decision was drawn out in our promotion season - weren''t it only decided just before the last match?[/quote]The QPR decision in itself wasn''t drawn out. The problem was that it was a complex case - as much financial as footballing - that needed to be thoroughly investigated in South America as well as in the UK, and that proved very difficult. One important Argentine witness, for example, proved impossible to track down. So it only came before the tribunal just before the end of the season, by which time it was indeed clear what the ramifications of a points penalty would be.

[lappinitup 629]

Rotherham have been deducted 3points.

[? 0]

They have been deducted three points but have right to appeal before 1st May