PDA

View Full Version : Pats loose appeal....Shels are champs


Pablo
11/04/2002, 11:48 AM
APPEAL DECISION - EXCLUSIVE (11.04.02)
In a fax to the club a few moments ago at 12.15pm, St Patrick's Athletic FC received notification that The FAI Appeal Board has decided to uphold the decision of the Officers of the League in deducting fifteen points from the League Champions. However, the Board also stated that the League's investigation into breaches of the rules on registration will result in the rules being applied and points deducted accordingly. The Saints will now decide on their next course of action.

http://www.stpatsfc.com/

We havent heard the last of this.....Longford.....Rovers....and numerous other clubs coul have points deducted.

No Mention of Cork City anywhere yet suprisingly, given the lack of professionalism at the Cross
Éanna
11/04/2002, 12:49 PM
yeah apparently longford c0cked up on 15 registrations- sent them all in together instead of separately as the rules state and rovers misspelt Pascal Vaudequins name on his form. :rolleyes:
pete
11/04/2002, 1:27 PM
Originally posted by Éanna
yeah apparently longford c0cked up on 15 registrations- sent them all in together instead of separately as the rules state and rovers misspelt Pascal Vaudequins name on his form. :rolleyes:


I think we'll see theres a big difference between not registering a playing & incorrectly registering a player.

Would be idiotic to sanction clubs for Putting in the same envelope (cheapskates) & misspelling name (illiterates)...... Forgetting to register a player is completely different.
joe
11/04/2002, 5:54 PM
said that Menton has given Pats assurances that any other clubs in breach of rule 16(a) will also be punished accordingly.
Éanna
12/04/2002, 1:46 PM
Originally posted by pete
I think we'll see theres a big difference between not registering a playing & incorrectly registering a player.

Agreed, but where that point runs into trouble is the Babaz case. Pats said that when they were filling out the registration form, they put 2001 instead of 2002 as the expiration date of his contract, so they can argue that this was a case of incorrect registration rather than non-registration.:confused: