So we're suing

[Syteanric 1]

oh how vital fers "goal" vs cardiff seems now.... sunderland got fined for playing an ilegible player.. "cheating"

we castigate our own team for scoring a fair and legitimate goal which would have gone unpunished and left us 1 point behind sunderland.... that would be Sunderland who "cheated"....

we beat cardiff.... the ref invented a rule to say we didnt

[iron_stan 0]

sunderland should have been deducted points, admin error or not, the rules are the rules and there should be no exception, its professional multimillion pound sport not sunday league, if the boot was on the other foot they would be doing the same

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

It does seem some people are intent on missing the point. This is a legal/business thing and if we are seeking clarification it is something we are fully entitled to do as Sunderland would in our position.

If everyone else can comply with these rules, so should Sunderland. The guy played 4 times. The results are wholly irrelevant: they certainly didn''t play him in the hope of losing. The fact is that NO side deliberately breaks these rules, yet they are ALL given points deductions, seemingly without fail.

We can''t turn back the clock and IMO a points deduction now would be fairly ridiculous (and probably save nothing), but there is no reason why we and other clubs shouldn''t seek clarification and if possible some recompense.

[Sussexyellow 55]

I seem to remember Sheffield Utd following a legal path a few years back. Now then where are they.........?

[Kingston Yellow 220]

Having been cheated out of a perfectly legitimate goal last weekend at Old Trafford and having had a very soft penalty awarded against us - both decisions fundamentally impacting the outcome of the game; and to add insult to injury, Sunderland score a perfectly legitimate goal the following week which, quite rightly wasn''t disallowed, I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with the club using whatever means necessary to protect our best interests.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

I love the little ole Norwich brigade on here, "oh no it would be tin pot to complain" what a bunch of spineless losers.

Use everything you can to stay up, oh and let''s stop congratulating Sunderland eh?

[JF 694]

Sussexyellow wrote the following post at 04/05/2014 9:40 AM:

I seem to remember Sheffield Utd following a legal path a few years back. Now then where are they.........?

They made £19 million out of that. These cases are quite different but other clubs have been deducted points for the same offence.

[Davo 0]

In the 2006/7 season AFC Wimbledon fielded new signing Jermaine Darlington previsouly of Cardiff City in three games. Jermaine was ineligible to play because AFC Wimbledon (then of the Isthmian league) didn''t realise that despite Cardiff playing in the English leagues their player registrations were in fact held with the Welsh FA and not the English FA. The outcome is they were deducted 3 points and fined £4,000.

Is Sunderland''s error any different? I believe the player in question had previously been on loan to a German side and hadn''t been registered properly when he came back.

Davo

[MancCanary 0]

Initially, I was embarrassed to read we are suing now, at this stage.

But having read another article on the Guardian website about it (http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/may/03/gus-poyet-sunderland-points-ji-dong-won-ineligible) I now feel it is fair that we sue. It can''t be one rule for everyone else and not for Sunderland.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Jenkins"]We are not suing, we have written a letter asking for clarification about the decision. There is nothing tinpot about that, but hey let''s all slate our club again.

I am not sure where this idea that Sunderland were trying to hush it up has come from, would be interested if that was the case, I believe the concern is that the league apparantly tried to keep the whole thing quiet.

Nothing will come of this, but we can still do the job on the field OTBC[/quote]

You''re the only one saying Sunderland tried to hush it up. It was the FL/PL (whichever it was) attempted to do until a Journo was leaked/found out about it.

Whether they did so was because they thought it was a minor thing who knows. However on the other hand a broken rule is a broken rule.

[......and Smith must score. 1,334]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]oh how vital fers "goal" vs cardiff seems now.... sunderland got fined for playing an ilegible player.. "cheating"

we castigate our own team for scoring a fair and legitimate goal which would have gone unpunished and left us 1 point behind sunderland.... that would be Sunderland who "cheated"....

we beat cardiff.... the ref invented a rule to say we didnt[/quote]Clutching at straws here. You''re probably right that the '' goal '' against Cardiff should have stood but we''d have let them score at the other end anyway.Besides I somehow doubt two extra points will make any difference to our fate this year.We''ve been c*ap and deserve to be relegated.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

private Frazer

"Sod the appeal. Why did they try and hush it all up?"

When I read this earlier I thought you were referring to Sunderland which was why I questioned it, I hadn''t seen that anywhere else.

Misunderstood you.

[William Darby 0]

No worries

[Man Who Stares at Goats 0]

[quote user="morty"][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.[/quote]

Fair point, Morty, but ignorance of the law shouldn''t shield Sunderland from the consequences of those actions. And how do we know if it was truly an ''administrative error''? They could have presented and sold the situation as such. have you ever tried telling a police officer that you didn''t see the speed limit sign?In either case, innocently or intentional, the law is the law and it should be handed down accordingly, if not only to preserve the integrity of the laws themselves. If we happen to benefit from a points deduction on their part, then gravy.The only part of this that I don''t agree with is that not all of the teams in the premier league are pushing for this. It seems only the three teams in trouble are crying for mummy. Bottom line, Sunderland violated the law. We''re not talking about middle school kids or a pick-up game; this is the premier league and they cheated. Therefore they should be punished accordingly.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

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.

Fair point, Morty, but ignorance of the law shouldn''t shield Sunderland from the consequences of those actions. And how do we know if it was truly an ''administrative error''? They could have presented and sold the situation as such.

It''s not a fair point. The rules are there for a reason, PL clubs should be able to deal with their admin, if that''s what it is, properly.

If they can''t they take the consequences.

[JF 694]

I wonder what the reaction and punishment would have been had Everton made the same error and were sitting in 4th place denying Arsenal a CL place?

[Mr Jenkins 0]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/04/premier-league-legal-challenge-sunderland-ineligible-player

Not looking too promising

[Guest]

What if Cardiff and Fulham win at the weekend and, if Cardiff score plenty and we lose heavily, NCFC were to finish bottom of the league, it wouldn''t help us one iota.

Would all those who are championing the no doubt long and drawn out and potentially expensive legal action be quite so positive?

Of course punishments handed out should be fair and justice seen to prevail. Sunderland for instance could have next season''s income from the SKY money shared between the relegated clubs.

But should we then take further legal action to have Fer''s goal allowed and the match awarded to us?

I foresee a can of worms and many bad tastes left in many mouths.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

For me there are two issues here:

1) If Norwich, Fulham and Cardiff really are instructing lawyers to issue a legal challenge then it smacks of desperation. Once the matter became public any club that had an issue with the decision should have made their feelings know at that time, regardless of their league position at the time.

2) Just looking at this issue without the Norwich element it is clear to me that their needs to be much more transparency from the FA, this issue only became public knowledge because it was leaked. The rules around the punishment for fielding an ineligble player need to be made absolutely clear. It is wrong for some posters to suggest that as Sunderland made a genuine error they should not be punished, there are plenty of precedents for clubs being severely punished for a genuine error rather than cheating, albeit not by the Premier League. I find it interesting that AFC Wimbledon were docked points by the Football League for a genuine administrativer error yet Sunderland were able to progess in the League Cup, earning themselves a bit of cash whilst doing so......

[cb23 0]

[quote user="JF"]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".[/quote]

Try adding the rest of the rule JF rather than missing the important bit out ...

Any Club found to have played an ineligible Player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and have levied upon it a fine. The Company may vary this decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or where the ineligibility is related to the Player''s status only. The Board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms as are decided by the Board which may also levy penalty points against the Club in default.

The error was to do with whether the player did indeed have an ITC, so yes rules are rules but in this case the punishment fits the law of this rule exactly. Choosing the first and last part of this rule to argue a points deduction is always the case is totally misleading.

On top of that:

Ji was a registered player with SAFC and appeared on their 25 premier league registered player list. The ITC issue only arose because he went out on loan to a foreign club and came back. Not all ineligible players are the same type of ineligibility.

Sunderland noticed the error when Ji was not on a list of FIFA dope test schedules (when he should have been) and informed the premier league immediately. Since Ji has since moved on it is highly unlikely that this error would have been spotted by any other party.

In 3 of the games that Ji played, Sunderland lost. In the other game he came on as a sub. At the time Sunderland were winning 1-0, the final score was 1-1. Ji''s net contribution seems to have been -2 points.

The issue was not hidden. As mentioned it was fully discussed with premier league members in April and the punishment was deemed correct. There was no press release about the issue or fine, but clearly the issue was not hidden from the main stakeholders.

Those last 4 points are a bit by the by. I agree that the PL should stick to the letter of its laws with no exceptions. But on reading the full law, rather than just selected bits, its clear that since the issue was solely an ITC issue, the PL has the right not to issue a points deduction. There is therefore no legal grounds for complaint.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Well they will be so far ahead of us by the end of the season it won''t matter.