🔵 🔴 Inverness CT v The Gl£$ga Gr€tna 🕷🕷

[bdu98196]

5 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Fair point, though you could extend that to written confirmation at time of registration. I doubt they have the resource for that and contract terms are normally for others to call upon. If you were sitting on the ICT board, with this knowledge and the possibility of a cup run at hand, would you really trust some wallah at the SFA to be diligent, or would you look after your club and make the call?

We have Scot Gardiner in charge..............

[micaley68]

2 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

The relevant part is section 12.5. It shows the crime, section 11 covers the punishment. Can’t find the section for fucking idiots.

You'll be needing the Dundee thread for that M9.

[The Master]

24 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Why? Are the SFA to conduct their business on the hearsay of social media? Of course there needs to be a complaint. 

Inverness do not need to raise a complaint.

But nor will the SFA "conduct their business on the hearsay of social media".

[Central Belt Caley]

 

[RiG]

@Central Belt Caleygot there first.

Edited February 1, 2023 by RiG

[Bring Your Own Socks]

Club Statement

[Skyline Drifter]

28 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Why? Are the SFA to conduct their business on the hearsay of social media? Of course there needs to be a complaint. 

Nonsense. There's been enough publicity. The SFA don't live in a vacuum. They'll check the teamsheet and issues a charge accordingly regardless of the opposition's actions. There are plenty of cases of such things happening before without opposition even having been aware beforehand.

[Stephen Malkmus]

We are massive.

[ICTChris]

Queens Park spending too much time lighting huge cigars with £20 notes and diving into rooms fulll of golden coins Scrooge McDuck style to do basic administration is it?

[Arachnophile]

4 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Queens Park spending too much time lighting huge cigars with £20 notes and diving into rooms fulll of golden coins Scrooge McDuck style to do basic administration is it?

most credible defence I've seen so far

[Dave]

8 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Queens Park spending too much time lighting huge cigars with £20 notes and diving into rooms fulll of golden coins Scrooge McDuck style to do basic administration is it?

Queen's Park 22/23 boardroom season review:

Edited February 1, 2023 by Dave

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

Any idea what the three category headings mean? Obviously higher punishment levels but what does LE/MR/TE stand for?

It’s already been covered, but there are actually four categories…Low End (LE), Mid Range (MR), Top End (TE) and Maximum.

Reading SFA Rule 12 gets to the details of the violation, which is a violation of 12.4 by listing, let alone using, Henderson…the ins and outs are from 12.5.

JPP Section 11 covers how to determine what level of sanction to apply, and the key there a choice of intentional, reckless, or careless violation. I assume the Club Secretary is probably the focus here, any track record? However, even at that point, under JPP 303, a violation of SFA Rule 12 seemingly mandates ejection from the cup.

The optional stuff is financial penalties and/or future exclusion…however, I do see how you could argue that the A and/or B and/or C penalty listings might suggest you could survive witty financial penalty. I just thunk that’s extremely unlikely, but agree it’s one way to read it, so I stand corrected.

[Grumpy Soo-sider]

1 hour ago, bdu98196 said:

Suspect it may mean that if you have cash then you can buy your way into remaining in the competition - convoluted and woolly worded with so much grey it'll benefit the biggest and most financially powerful clubs.

Nowhere does it read that expulsion is mandatory, therefore given the series of 'or' options it could be considered there are alternative options available.

Depends whether ICT wish to bother pushing this much too.

 

"Suspect it may mean that if you have cash then you can buy your way into remaining in the competition" - that's Murray's transfer fee gone.

"convoluted and woolly worded with so much grey it'll benefit the biggest and most financially powerful clubs" - lawyers love grey areas and are more than happy to debate this (for a price)

"Nowhere does it read that expulsion is mandatory, therefore given the series of 'or' options it could be considered there are alternative options available" - disappointment we've learned to live with - it's the hope that kills us

"Depends whether ICT wish to bother pushing this much too" - I really don't think that matters.

 

Someone needs their @^$€ kicked

[Phillips455]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

Queens Park spending too much time lighting huge cigars with £20 notes and diving into rooms fulll of golden coins Scrooge McDuck style to do basic administration is it?

I dont think £20 notes are good for that now since their all plastic. Probably worse than smoking the cigars.

 

Also might be why they didn't bother to check their own players eligibility.

[SandyCromarty]

You have to question the actions of QP's management and administration as there has been a few cases recently of ineligible players used causing upsets and forfeits, it's not as if this is an obscure ruling dragged up from the depths of the rules book as it has been in the footballing public domain.

Didn't Killie have to forfeit a game plus get fined £5000, then there was Elgin and Bank's o Dee last year.

Somebody has to take the rap for this and anyway QP will get punished.

[HibeeJibee]

There would have been no need for Inverness to enter a protest - though for all anybody knows, they may have written in, to be doubly sure.

SFA check all Scottish Cup teamlines for eligibility... earlier this season they caught Banks o'Dee fielding an unregistered player (who ultimately also cost them 24pts in HL) and Turriff didn't even realise until they were back in.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

It’s already been covered, but there are actually four categories…Low End (LE), Mid Range (MR), Top End (TE) and Maximum.

Reading SFA Rule 12 gets to the details of the violation, which is a violation of 12.4 by listing, let alone using, Henderson…the ins and outs are from 12.5.

JPP Section 11 covers how to determine what level of sanction to apply, and the key there a choice of intentional, reckless, or careless violation. I assume the Club Secretary is probably the focus here, any track record? However, even at that point, under JPP 303, a violation of SFA Rule 12 seemingly mandates ejection from the cup.

The optional stuff is financial penalties and/or future exclusion…however, I do see how you could argue that the A and/or B and/or C penalty listings might suggest you could survive witty financial penalty. I just thunk that’s extremely unlikely, but agree it’s one way to read it, so I stand corrected.

My take on it is the small print at the bottom of section 12 (asterisk) refers you to section 11 which as I mentioned earlier deals with the punishment. This infers 11 is Superior. The bullet point list starts with censure and fines, gravitates to match replays and ends up with the full bhoona. So it could be as soft as a censure all the way up to a £100k fine and out the cup. As ridiculous as it seems, there are people around the club who could negotiate the former and others around the club who could negotiate the latter. I’m unclear if ICT are allowed their opinion on this? 

[TxRover]

5 minutes ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

My take on it is the small print at the bottom of section 12 (asterisk) refers you to section 11 which as I mentioned earlier deals with the punishment. This infers 11 is Superior. The bullet point list starts with censure and fines, gravitates to match replays and ends up with the full bhoona. So it could be as soft as a censure all the way up to a £100k fine and out the cup. As ridiculous as it seems, there are people around the club who could negotiate the former and others around the club who could negotiate the latter. I’m unclear if ICT are allowed their opinion on this? 

The JPP makes it pretty clear there’s only involvement of the Club to provide evidence and be responsive to requests from the Compliant Officer and the Judicial Panel. It seems pretty clear they frown upon any attempt at influencing the results,  it your mileage may vary.

With regard to inferior and superior, Rule 303 is the ironclad one, and it has a sliding range from a slap on the wrist to execution, so you’re not wrong about who knows…but the precedent is clear, a directed 3-0 ICT victory.

Edited February 1, 2023 by TxRover

[SandyCromarty]

1 hour ago, Bring Your Own Socks said:

My take on it is the small print at the bottom of section 12 (asterisk) refers you to section 11 which as I mentioned earlier deals with the punishment. This infers 11 is Superior. The bullet point list starts with censure and fines, gravitates to match replays and ends up with the full bhoona. So it could be as soft as a censure all the way up to a £100k fine and out the cup. As ridiculous as it seems, there are people around the club who could negotiate the former and others around the club who could negotiate the latter. I’m unclear if ICT are allowed their opinion on this? 

ICT do not need to offer an opinion as there is a clear precedent with Banks o Dee this season having to forfeit their game to Turriff when they fielded an ineligible player.

From that I cannot see any alternative for Queens Park.

If the SFA made any other decision than forfeiture then they would leave themselves open to possible litigation.

What is the point of Rules if the Governing Body who set the rules misinterpret to favour one club over another.

We would then have Banks O Dee clamouring to overturn their decision and Turriff demanding it stood.

Chaos.

Edited February 1, 2023 by SandyCromarty

[Arachnophile]

3 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

ICT do not need to offer an opinion as there is a clear precedent with Banks o Dee this season having to forfeit their game to Turriff when they fielded an ineligible player.

From that I cannot see any alternative for Queens Park.

If the SFA made any other decision than forfeiture then they would leave themselves open to possible litigation.

What is the point of Rules if the Governing Body who set the rules misinterpret to suit.

I would be astonished and flabbergasted if we are still in the cup after Friday. Good luck to ICT in the next round.