Do Pats have a case?

[Éanna]

from eircomleague.net

Dooney report finds fault with all clubs' registrations
Wednesday, April 17th, 2002
Roy Dooney's investigation into all eircom League players' registrations this season has found that each of the 21 clubs had erred in at least one way.

The Evening Herald newspaper report today will strengthen the determination of Saint Patrick's Athletic in their efforts to win back some of the 15 points they were deducted arising from the Charles Mbabazi Livingstone issue.

Each clubs' wrongdoing was listed in the report, but the clubs were only identified as "a", "b", "c" and so on. Dooney wrote in the report that there was a conflict between the League and FAI rulebooks and the rules for registration.

"There are numerous breaches of the registration rules, major and minor, by clubs," the commissioner revealed.

"Compliance with the rules however is not helped by the fact that there are contradictions between the League and FAI rule books for registrations and the rules for registrations have changed every year for the last four seasons.

"At the end of the day if a club submits a form in good faith it is reasonable for a club to assume it has been accepted by the League in the absence of any notification to the contrary."

In order for a player to be registered, the following proceedures have to be followed: he has personally signed the registration form; the signature is properly witnessed; the form must be posted individually by registered post; a copy of the form must be sent by either fax or courier; the form is registered with registration secretary together with the applicable registration fee as per rule.

What follows are the details of all clubs, though it is very difficult to know what club matches each letter:

Club A
32 registration forms sent
2 with faxed copy
2 with no players date of birth
1 with no address for player
2 forms with no end of contract details
19 forms with no professional cintract details

Club B
50 players registered
Majority have no fax copies
Some forms signed by person other than secretary
1 form with no players date of birth
Couple of forms came in envelopes
No financial details on forms for three players
One form registered in August 1999 - no indication form was sent by registered post

Club C
38 registration forms sent
Only 10 have faxed copies

Club D
66 players registered 1 has faxed copy
11 players forms have no witness address on them
1 player form has no address, no place of birth, no date of birth
7 forms for professionals have no contract details
Forms for 6 players registered in July 2000 were posted by Swiftpost, not registered post

Club E
52 players registered 10 forms have no fax copies
2 forms sent in May 2001 have no registered post stickers and no envelope to indicate they came by registered post
1 form not signed by secretary although witness section filled in
1 form has no player date of birth
1 form has no previous club entered
Number of forms sent in envelopes

Club F
39 registration forms sent
36 fax copies
1 form with no address of witness
1 player registered as an amateur with contract details filled in

Club G
41 players registered
23 forms have fax copies
19 forms show no last club
1 form has no player date of birth
3 forms have no date of player signature

Club H
55 registration forms sent
11 forms have no fax copies
10 forms have no name completed for the player consent section and no date for the season being registered
1 form has no address of witness to player signature

Club I
41 registration forms sent
4 from August 2000 are not stamped by registered post
4 other forms sent June 2000 have a photocopy of the same registered post envelope attached
7 forms have faxed copies
2 forms do not have contract details on them
8 forms list no previous club
1 form not signed by by club secretary although witness ssection complete
No original form can be found for one player

Club J
54 registration forms sent
16 with faxed copies

Club K
60 registration forms sent
21 were posted individually to the League in August 2001 by unregistered post
10 forms have faxed copies
No date of birth for any player

Club L
46 registration forms sent
27 have faxed copies
1 professional form does not have contract details

Club M
42 registration forms sent
6 with faxed copies
2 forms with no professional details
5 forms with no date of players signature

Club N
31 players registered
None accompanied by fax copy of form
Most forms not individually registered post-marked
1 player [reg August 1999], 1 Player [reg June 1998], ome player [reg October 1999] - form not stamped by registered post
and no envelope
8 forms from season before this season not registered with the League within four days of the player signing as the rule then required

Club O
43 players registered
9 forms had faxed copies

Club P
55 registration forms sent
14 have faxed copies
8 professional forms do not have contract details on them
3 forms have no end of contract details on them

Club Q
48 players registered
1 form with fax copy

Club R
54 players registered
All with registered post mark on form
2 forms with fax copy
5 professional forms do not have contract details on them

Club S
50 players registered
4 forms with fax copy

Club T
37 registration forms sent
4 forms with fax copies
2 forms with insufficient place of birth details

Club U
59 registration forms sent
23 with fax copy
25 professional forms do not have contract details on them
5 forms not registered with the League within the four days of the player signing as the rule then required

[Éanna]

So when Pats said that they were the only ones being punished, even though others broke the rules too, they were right. Whether any of these breaches are as serious as the Marney and Mbabazi ones is now the real issue. What a mess

[pete]

Firstly why do clubs have to send a copy by fax or courier? Registered post is as good as handing it in yourself & getting a receipt. Fax is dodgy as no proof makes it to the other side & coureir just fast version of registered post.

I think the problem with Marney & Livingstone was there were NO registration papers for them. I think thats a bit different before incompleet or improperly registered players.

"At the end of the day if a club submits a form in good faith it is reasonable for a club to assume it has been accepted by the League in the absence of any notification to the contrary."

I think thats fair enough. If a club can prove (cert of postage not proof) it sent the form then the FAI have essentially accepted its ok unless they have indicated at the time otherwise.

Pint for anyone who can link a letter to a club? Are they in alphabetical order?

[Schumi]

Originally posted by pete
Pint for anyone who can link a letter to a club? Are they in alphabetical order?

12 of the teams say "x registration forms sent" and the other 9 say "x players registered" so I'd guess that the former are the Premier clubs and the latter are the First Division clubs.

Club I: "No original form can be found for one player" must be Longford.

[joe]

Originally posted by pete
Pint for anyone who can link a letter to a club? Are they in alphabetical order?

I'm guessing that

Club F
39 registration forms sent
36 fax copies
1 form with no address of witness
1 player registered as an amateur with contract details filled in

is Cork City

[pete]

Need the reasoning behind your guesses too.....



Obviously the more players per club would suggest the bigger clubs too. Its not as if Cobh or Limerick would have 55-60 players on their books.

[mouldymurphy]

Originally posted by pete
Need the reasoning behind your guesses too.....



Obviously the more players per club would suggest the bigger clubs too. Its not as if Cobh or Limerick would have 55-60 players on their books.

they dont even have that many fans

[Éanna]

Originally posted by pete
I think the problem with Marney & Livingstone was there were NO registration papers for them. I think thats a bit different before incompleet or improperly registered players.

It is different, but how do you decide how much people are allowed break a rule? If the rule is broken, it's broken-full-stop. there's no such thing as half breaking a rule.