Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
splutcho

So we're suing

Recommended Posts

Supposedly joining forces with Fulham and Cardiff and brought lawyers in to dispute Sunderland not getting a points deduction for fielding an ineligible player this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing to add but just want Morty to make some pithy retort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="pete"]Nothing to add but just want Morty to make some pithy retort.[/quote]Awwww, I have really got under your skin, haven''t I?[:(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems a bit "sour grapes" really, and theres no precedent for this.From what I understand it was purely an administrative error, rather than deliberate misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is true, it''s laughable really. At the end of the day, if Sunderland stay above us, they deserve to stay in the league; not us. I for one, would prefer to go down and earn our place in the Premier League back next season that to stay up on a technicality. We haven''t been good enough, it is as simple as that.

I remember the talk of QPR receiving a points deduction the year we went up. If they had been given that deduction, we would have been awarded the title. That would have felt just as much of a hollow victory as staying in the league on this technicality.

There is only one circumstance under which I want us to stay in this league; by getting sufficient points from these remaining two games to do so. Then, and only then will we deserve to keep our place in the Premier League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess that''s the end of the special relationship/friendly final nonsense....

Hugely embarrassing from us. Thought we were better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where has this come from? Pathetic if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Davness"]If this is true, it''s laughable really. At the end of the day, if Sunderland stay above us, they deserve to stay in the league; not us. I for one, would prefer to go down and earn our place in the Premier League back next season that to stay up on a technicality. We haven''t been good enough, it is as simple as that.

I remember the talk of QPR receiving a points deduction the year we went up. If they had been given that deduction, we would have been awarded the title. That would have felt just as much of a hollow victory as staying in the league on this technicality.

There is only one circumstance under which I want us to stay in this league; by getting sufficient points from these remaining two games to do so. Then, and only then will we deserve to keep our place in the Premier League.[/quote]Without going back into the detail (and without being in favour of whatever we might be contemplating) QPR were very lucky not to be docked points. They were found guilty and fined for "gaining a sporting advantage" by fielding a player they knew was ineligible under the rules. If they had lost the points gained in the relevant matches they would have ended up in the play-offs rather than the automatic places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JF"]Where has this come from? Pathetic if true.[/quote]I think The Guardian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brownstone, do you know what sour grapes means?

Suing in this case is pure, embarrassing desperation. If it was sour grapes'' we''d have sued months ago when we didn''t fire CH. A 4 point reduction and we''d still need something to stay up. How many points deducted would be fair? It was one game, wasn''t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think The Guardian.

Yeah I have just read the piece on their site. Not a chance of getting a points deduction off them now. Best the club could hope for is compensation. They only gained one point when he was playing anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Houston Canary wrote the following post at 03/05/2014 10:16 PM:

Brownstone, do you know what sour grapes means?

Suing in this case is pure, embarrassing desperation. If it was sour grapes'' we''d have sued months ago when we didn''t fire CH. A 4 point reduction and we''d still need something to stay up. How many points deducted would be fair? It was one game, wasn''t it?

No he played in 4 league games . They lost 3 and drew 1. Also played in a league cup game they won I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JF"]I think The Guardian.

Yeah I have just read the piece on their site. Not a chance of getting a points deduction off them now. Best the club could hope for is compensation. They only gained one point when he was playing anyway![/quote]Like I said, I believe it was purely an administrative error, that the club themselves held their hands up to, rather than being deliberately deceitful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, JF.

So the question of how many points deducted would be fair remains, but if they got only 1 from games, maybe they should be given a few extra ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/03/sunderland-face-legal-fight-points-deduction?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quite right too that this should be investigated. If this is a breach of rules that should carry a points deduction then thats what should happen.....what are we supposed to do?...just shrug our shoulders and say "oh thats ok, nevermind".

I think it might be futile though as I can see Sunderland finishing more points ahead of us than a possible 1 or 3 points deduction might incur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if the shoe was on the other foot you don`t think Sunderland would be doing the exact same thing??

Exactly !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree we deserve to go down, but if there is rule that says teams should be given a points deduction for fielding an ineligible player then it should be enforced.

We managed not to field ineligible players, so its not sour grapes at all. Mind you, the rule would have to SPECIFICALLY STATE that there should be a points deduction, or else it is sour grapes. Does any one know the wording of the rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More here

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/may/03/gus-poyet-sunderland-points-ji-dong-won-ineligible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but waiting until now stinks of pathetic desperation. It should have been done months ago. By the time a decision is made, next season will be here. Sunderland legal team would drag it out, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The West Ham/Sheffield United relegation is another case which shares similarities. Tevez played when ineligible and the F.A. got out of a cock-up by imposing a large fine when they''d let it go too long to reverse the relegation which a deduction would have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lowlyfendweller"]I agree we deserve to go down, but if there is rule that says teams should be given a points deduction for fielding an ineligible player then it should be enforced.

We managed not to field ineligible players, so its not sour grapes at all. Mind you, the rule would have to SPECIFICALLY STATE that there should be a points deduction, or else it is sour grapes. Does any one know the wording of the rule?[/quote]Some people are trying to quote a similar incident that happened in the football league, but they are two totally separate entities, I don''t think theres a precedent for the in the PL.I believe it was a simple admin error, and they held their hands up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
embaressing and desperate.... is this what it has come too City?

which member of the board suggested this??? utter joke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="danielsroundabout"]The West Ham/Sheffield United relegation is another case which shares similarities. Tevez played when ineligible and the F.A. got out of a cock-up by imposing a large fine when they''d let it go too long to reverse the relegation which a deduction would have done.[/quote]I don''t think you can compare that with this case really, the circumstances are very different.But West Ham did get off lightly, in that case, and got away with it on the technicality that the club had changed owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rule 6.9 in the Football Association''s relevant statutes states that "any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record". It adds that "the board … may also levy penalty points against the club in default".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...