Updated: Bradford City appeal against FA Cup expulsion

Loan defender Curtis Good played for City in their FA Cup tie against Brentford

Loan defender Curtis Good played for City in their FA Cup tie against Brentford

First published in Bantams by

City tonight confirmed they are to appeal against being booted out of the FA Cup for fielding an ineligible player in their second-round tie against Brentford last Friday.

The Bantams did not receive written permission for Curtis Good, on loan from Newcastle, to play in the competition by the 12pm deadline on the day of the fixture, which ended 1-1 at Valley Parade.

The decision is subject to the appeal which, if unsuccessful, would see Brentford progress to the third round to play Bury or Southend.

The Bantams said in a club statement this evening: “Bradford City Football Club can confirm that they will be appealing the FA’s decision to expel the club from this season’s FA Cup with Budweiser competition.

“This process will take place throughout the forthcoming week. The club will report any further information to its supporters when applicable.

“The club has no further comment to make on this matter at this present time, given that it is an ongoing issue.”

An earlier FA statement had read: “The FA has confirmed that Bradford City have been removed from the FA Cup with Budweiser 2012-13 competition after fielding an ineligible player in their second-round tie against Brentford.”

City admitted the error was “of an administrative technical nature” and apologised to their fans.

The Bantams were the only side left in three domestic cup competitions and face Premier League giants Arsenal in the quarter-finals of the Capital One Cup on Tuesday, December 11.

Before the appeal was announced, Brentford chief executive Mark Devlin admitted he had sympathy with Bradford and would have preferred to have advanced in the competition another way.

He said: “It is not a satisfactory way to progress. We would much rather prefer to progress by winning a match but the FA have made their decision.

“The first we heard of anything was on Monday afternoon and internally we just held off before putting tickets out for sale for the replay and just waited for the FA’s decision from yesterday’s committee hearing.

“It is the FA’s competition and the FA make the rules which we all know about. Whether we feel sympathetic or not does not come into play really. It is the FA’s decision. I do have some sympathies with Bradford.

“It is entirely a matter for the FA and Bradford City Football Club. I don’t think we will be asked to get involved any further at this stage.”

Comments (82)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:28am Fri 7 Dec 12

bobbyzelmut says...

Disappointing, but can't help but feel that this will work in our favour in the long term. We're already guaranteed to be playing 58 games this season - 60 once we beat Arsenal on Tuesday ;) ! I'd much rather we get promoted than progress one more round in a cup we're not going to win anyway.
Disappointing, but can't help but feel that this will work in our favour in the long term. We're already guaranteed to be playing 58 games this season - 60 once we beat Arsenal on Tuesday ;) ! I'd much rather we get promoted than progress one more round in a cup we're not going to win anyway. bobbyzelmut
  • Score: 0

11:30am Fri 7 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 0

11:35am Fri 7 Dec 12

Saltaire Bantam says...

The lad was rubbish as well, thir goal was entirly his fault. Send him back to Newcastle. We played away and at home against Northampton including extra time and penalties for nothing. What a joke
The lad was rubbish as well, thir goal was entirly his fault. Send him back to Newcastle. We played away and at home against Northampton including extra time and penalties for nothing. What a joke Saltaire Bantam
  • Score: 0

11:38am Fri 7 Dec 12

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

That isn't the issue TVOR, it was the late submission of him as a registered player for the competition. He was allowed to play by both his parent club and the FA but this is a clerical error by not submitting the permission to play form in time.
That isn't the issue TVOR, it was the late submission of him as a registered player for the competition. He was allowed to play by both his parent club and the FA but this is a clerical error by not submitting the permission to play form in time. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

11:40am Fri 7 Dec 12

bobbyzelmut says...

Saltaire Bantam wrote:
The lad was rubbish as well, thir goal was entirly his fault. Send him back to Newcastle. We played away and at home against Northampton including extra time and penalties for nothing. What a joke
Apart from the £20k or so we got for progressing? I think we would have had a struggle to beat Brentford in the replay anyway and the additional long trip in between trips to Southend and Wycombe is the last thing the team needs imho. Like I said, I think this will work in our favour in the long run and City fans can hardly complain about the entertainment they have had so far this season. Oh, hang on . . . I forgot that this is City fans.
[quote][p][bold]Saltaire Bantam[/bold] wrote: The lad was rubbish as well, thir goal was entirly his fault. Send him back to Newcastle. We played away and at home against Northampton including extra time and penalties for nothing. What a joke[/p][/quote]Apart from the £20k or so we got for progressing? I think we would have had a struggle to beat Brentford in the replay anyway and the additional long trip in between trips to Southend and Wycombe is the last thing the team needs imho. Like I said, I think this will work in our favour in the long run and City fans can hardly complain about the entertainment they have had so far this season. Oh, hang on . . . I forgot that this is City fans. bobbyzelmut
  • Score: 0

11:41am Fri 7 Dec 12

bettyswollocks says...

The severity of this punishments confirm something I and many others have suspeced for a long time. Not about the club but about the authorities.

That said, a club that can't manage to get seats the right way round on their ticketing website can hardly be expected to complete their admin correctly!
The severity of this punishments confirm something I and many others have suspeced for a long time. Not about the club but about the authorities. That said, a club that can't manage to get seats the right way round on their ticketing website can hardly be expected to complete their admin correctly! bettyswollocks
  • Score: 0

11:41am Fri 7 Dec 12

bctomuk2 says...

It is disappointing but I have to agree with the first comment above.

At least we dont have to travel down to Brentford to play a re-play which would have been very tough anyway and we could have lost more players to injury.

Although £18k for winning would have been handy then £27k for winning round 2. Then only a small chance of a 'big gun' in round 3.
It is disappointing but I have to agree with the first comment above. At least we dont have to travel down to Brentford to play a re-play which would have been very tough anyway and we could have lost more players to injury. Although £18k for winning would have been handy then £27k for winning round 2. Then only a small chance of a 'big gun' in round 3. bctomuk2
  • Score: 0

11:42am Fri 7 Dec 12

bobbyzelmut says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
That isn't the issue TVOR, it was the late submission of him as a registered player for the competition. He was allowed to play by both his parent club and the FA but this is a clerical error by not submitting the permission to play form in time.
Which wouldn't have been an issue if we had played the game on Saturday as opposed to being forced to play on a Friday night due to policing issues related to Leeds and Huddersfield playing each other.
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: That isn't the issue TVOR, it was the late submission of him as a registered player for the competition. He was allowed to play by both his parent club and the FA but this is a clerical error by not submitting the permission to play form in time.[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't have been an issue if we had played the game on Saturday as opposed to being forced to play on a Friday night due to policing issues related to Leeds and Huddersfield playing each other. bobbyzelmut
  • Score: 0

11:44am Fri 7 Dec 12

"get over it!" says...

Its only because the F.A are scared that City are starting to dominate English football too much, I heard Man City and Man united were the first to complain, they all feel threatened by us!
Its only because the F.A are scared that City are starting to dominate English football too much, I heard Man City and Man united were the first to complain, they all feel threatened by us! "get over it!"
  • Score: 0

11:45am Fri 7 Dec 12

nowt fresh says...

Saltaire Bantam wrote:
The lad was rubbish as well, thir goal was entirly his fault. Send him back to Newcastle. We played away and at home against Northampton including extra time and penalties for nothing. What a joke
Are you for real..!! what the hell has it to do with the player ?? incompetence on Bradford City's part,someone has not been on the ball and done their job correctly I'd say...!!!.
[quote][p][bold]Saltaire Bantam[/bold] wrote: The lad was rubbish as well, thir goal was entirly his fault. Send him back to Newcastle. We played away and at home against Northampton including extra time and penalties for nothing. What a joke[/p][/quote]Are you for real..!! what the hell has it to do with the player ?? incompetence on Bradford City's part,someone has not been on the ball and done their job correctly I'd say...!!!. nowt fresh
  • Score: 0

11:46am Fri 7 Dec 12

macca1969 says...

Lets take the positives, one less game to play and should we win replay another crap draw. Don't appeal as its what FA want. Probably punishing us to the max as we appealed against Fouled red card. Stick our fingers up at the clueless FA move on as we are still undefeated in all the cups. :)
Lets take the positives, one less game to play and should we win replay another crap draw. Don't appeal as its what FA want. Probably punishing us to the max as we appealed against Fouled red card. Stick our fingers up at the clueless FA move on as we are still undefeated in all the cups. :) macca1969
  • Score: 0

11:48am Fri 7 Dec 12

"get over it!" says...

Would this have happened to a bigger club? Man United, Man City, Liverpool?
i think not !
demonstrates the F.A flexing the muscles
they cant tackle racism but they did a good job of kicking a league 2 club out of the cup!
Would this have happened to a bigger club? Man United, Man City, Liverpool? i think not ! demonstrates the F.A flexing the muscles they cant tackle racism but they did a good job of kicking a league 2 club out of the cup! "get over it!"
  • Score: 0

11:49am Fri 7 Dec 12

bigang02 says...

how can bradford city have got this wrong i would have thought the people in charge would have checked all the loan players would be able to play cup games before they came to city
how can bradford city have got this wrong i would have thought the people in charge would have checked all the loan players would be able to play cup games before they came to city bigang02
  • Score: 0

11:52am Fri 7 Dec 12

"get over it!" says...

bigang02 wrote:
how can bradford city have got this wrong i would have thought the people in charge would have checked all the loan players would be able to play cup games before they came to city
he was able to play , he had permission, it was admin error not submitting written authority to the F.A before deadline, its just the F.A showing how proffesional they are!
[quote][p][bold]bigang02[/bold] wrote: how can bradford city have got this wrong i would have thought the people in charge would have checked all the loan players would be able to play cup games before they came to city[/p][/quote]he was able to play , he had permission, it was admin error not submitting written authority to the F.A before deadline, its just the F.A showing how proffesional they are! "get over it!"
  • Score: 0

11:53am Fri 7 Dec 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Just the 3 trips to Wembley next year then.
Just the 3 trips to Wembley next year then. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 0

11:57am Fri 7 Dec 12

"get over it!" says...

i heard somebody forgot to put the clock back on the fax machine?
i heard somebody forgot to put the clock back on the fax machine? "get over it!"
  • Score: 0

11:59am Fri 7 Dec 12

oldmod says...

Managment error, three games + extra time and pens for nowt. We can all screw up, Parky may not be the manager wizard we all think he is! Let us hope this has not damaged team spirit. We need 3pts from Torquay on Saturday.
Managment error, three games + extra time and pens for nowt. We can all screw up, Parky may not be the manager wizard we all think he is! Let us hope this has not damaged team spirit. We need 3pts from Torquay on Saturday. oldmod
  • Score: 0

11:59am Fri 7 Dec 12

Go Torps! Yer flying. says...

Great news. Another genius move by Parky! Priorities are (1) promotion, (2) Tuesday - cos of the possible extra cash, (3) paint pot trophy - cos of the possibility of a trip to Wembley, (4) appealing against this FA cup decision - at least 2 more games to squeeze in before possibility of getting a decent draw.
Great news. Another genius move by Parky! Priorities are (1) promotion, (2) Tuesday - cos of the possible extra cash, (3) paint pot trophy - cos of the possibility of a trip to Wembley, (4) appealing against this FA cup decision - at least 2 more games to squeeze in before possibility of getting a decent draw. Go Torps! Yer flying.
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Fri 7 Dec 12

nowt fresh says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Just the 3 trips to Wembley next year then.
Just 2 Wembley appearances TVOR as we will finish in the top three, so no need for any play off's :-)).
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Just the 3 trips to Wembley next year then.[/p][/quote]Just 2 Wembley appearances TVOR as we will finish in the top three, so no need for any play off's :-)). nowt fresh
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Farsley Bantam says...

Its only the cup
Who gives a f*ck
We're super City and we're goin up!
Its only the cup Who gives a f*ck We're super City and we're goin up! Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Birky_Neil says...

To be honest not really bothered. Less games to pick up injuries and league success is all that matters.
To be honest not really bothered. Less games to pick up injuries and league success is all that matters. Birky_Neil
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Fri 7 Dec 12

"get over it!" says...

Lads will be well chuffed, Christmas party is back on!!! yyeeeyyy!
Lads will be well chuffed, Christmas party is back on!!! yyeeeyyy! "get over it!"
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Bingban says...

It isnt as if we played 12 - sometimes we play against 12!!
Black mark though
Worth appealing just for justice and sense
It isnt as if we played 12 - sometimes we play against 12!! Black mark though Worth appealing just for justice and sense Bingban
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Bungle's Bantam's says...

FA cup booooo. Up the football league we go!
FA cup booooo. Up the football league we go! Bungle's Bantam's
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

So, what they are basically saying is that if the clubs we play can't knock us out fairly, the FA will use a technicallity to do so. Nine cup games unbeaten this season, yet we find ourselves out of the FA Cup by fielding a loan player (we believed would be okay to play).

Ah well, one less trip to Wembley then. Don't think I would have been able to afford to go to the Capital One, FA & JPT cup finals, as well as a possible trip to the play-off final anyway...!
So, what they are basically saying is that if the clubs we play can't knock us out fairly, the FA will use a technicallity to do so. Nine cup games unbeaten this season, yet we find ourselves out of the FA Cup by fielding a loan player (we believed would be okay to play). Ah well, one less trip to Wembley then. Don't think I would have been able to afford to go to the Capital One, FA & JPT cup finals, as well as a possible trip to the play-off final anyway...! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time. Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Saltaire Bantam says...

They don't want city winning the quadruple and then qualifying for Europa League. No one can beat us over 90 minutes so they have to play politics.
They don't want city winning the quadruple and then qualifying for Europa League. No one can beat us over 90 minutes so they have to play politics. Saltaire Bantam
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Fri 7 Dec 12

tyker2 says...

mmm:who got it wring? surely not down to a fax machine erroon timing etc.

Who was responsible for filing the appopriate registrations?
mmm:who got it wring? surely not down to a fax machine erroon timing etc. Who was responsible for filing the appopriate registrations? tyker2
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Fri 7 Dec 12

tyker2 says...

is the penalty commensutae with the offence:methinks not and that maybe the basis of an appeal given that Newcastle had actually given permission
is the penalty commensutae with the offence:methinks not and that maybe the basis of an appeal given that Newcastle had actually given permission tyker2
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

Am I reading this right? Some muppets are saying this is down to Parky? How the feck is this Parky's fauly? He identified the players he wanted on loan and the club (poss Baldwin) were ten responsible for registering said players.

Parky then goes back to coaching the players and Baldwin attempts to get the player registered for the cup. I'm assuming they (Baldwin) didn't realise the Friday noon deadline and told PP he could pick him.

The above posters that are criticising Parky are simply morons....!
Am I reading this right? Some muppets are saying this is down to Parky? How the feck is this Parky's fauly? He identified the players he wanted on loan and the club (poss Baldwin) were ten responsible for registering said players. Parky then goes back to coaching the players and Baldwin attempts to get the player registered for the cup. I'm assuming they (Baldwin) didn't realise the Friday noon deadline and told PP he could pick him. The above posters that are criticising Parky are simply morons....! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Fri 7 Dec 12

BigFigure says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) ..... BigFigure
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Fri 7 Dec 12

LaCe78 says...

The treble is still on boys! Personally I'm not in the slightest bit bothered, we've got so many games coming up and the other two cup competitions are the ones we can do well in! Who wants to go to Southend away anyway! Great news if you think about it!!!

CTID!!!
The treble is still on boys! Personally I'm not in the slightest bit bothered, we've got so many games coming up and the other two cup competitions are the ones we can do well in! Who wants to go to Southend away anyway! Great news if you think about it!!! CTID!!! LaCe78
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him.

What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
[quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good???? Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

LaCe78 wrote:
The treble is still on boys! Personally I'm not in the slightest bit bothered, we've got so many games coming up and the other two cup competitions are the ones we can do well in! Who wants to go to Southend away anyway! Great news if you think about it!!! CTID!!!
But what if it wasn't Sarfend? What if we were to play Bury? We could give the kids/reserves another run out to keep them fresh (due to lack of reserve football). Then, who knows who we may have drawn in Rd3 (subject to winning through). I'd imagine that if we do well next week against the Ar5e and cover ourselves in some kind of glory (not necessarily winning, but running them close), then a trip to Anfield could have been selected for TV. More revenue and something for PP to spend in January?

As it happens, we no longer have to travel to Brentford or wherever in rd2, which is good news, but there is no money for team strengthening in January. It is already been suggested that the Ar5e money will be swallowed up to repay the deficit.
[quote][p][bold]LaCe78[/bold] wrote: The treble is still on boys! Personally I'm not in the slightest bit bothered, we've got so many games coming up and the other two cup competitions are the ones we can do well in! Who wants to go to Southend away anyway! Great news if you think about it!!! CTID!!![/p][/quote]But what if it wasn't Sarfend? What if we were to play Bury? We could give the kids/reserves another run out to keep them fresh (due to lack of reserve football). Then, who knows who we may have drawn in Rd3 (subject to winning through). I'd imagine that if we do well next week against the Ar5e and cover ourselves in some kind of glory (not necessarily winning, but running them close), then a trip to Anfield could have been selected for TV. More revenue and something for PP to spend in January? As it happens, we no longer have to travel to Brentford or wherever in rd2, which is good news, but there is no money for team strengthening in January. It is already been suggested that the Ar5e money will be swallowed up to repay the deficit. Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Fri 7 Dec 12

tyker2 says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him.

What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
possibly because clearance for turgott came through a lot erlier than Good:only a guess but a possible answer to your question
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]possibly because clearance for turgott came through a lot erlier than Good:only a guess but a possible answer to your question tyker2
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Victor Clayton says...

mistakes happen. but happily we are in a position this season where it is not the end of the world.
as the saying goes - lets concentrate on the league (and our other cups).
mistakes happen. but happily we are in a position this season where it is not the end of the world. as the saying goes - lets concentrate on the league (and our other cups). Victor Clayton
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12

BigFigure says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him.

What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them. BigFigure
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Fri 7 Dec 12

BANT MAN says...

3 words to say on this.... "blessing in disguise".
3 words to say on this.... "blessing in disguise". BANT MAN
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Fri 7 Dec 12

BigFigure says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him.

What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them. BigFigure
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Fri 7 Dec 12

StaffsBantam says...

An administrative error - so let's not be looking for a scapegoat. Subject to appeal, we are out. Plenty more for us to be thinking about, let's just get on with it.
An administrative error - so let's not be looking for a scapegoat. Subject to appeal, we are out. Plenty more for us to be thinking about, let's just get on with it. StaffsBantam
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Mangotakeaway says...

Long term it will be a blessing in disguise.

Maybe an intentional error :-)

On a more positive note City will beat Torquay tomorrow and get 3 points towards our ultimate target.

To join in and celebrate the win Mango (Indian takeaway) on Bolton Road will offer 15% off any orders taken between 5pm and 7pm over £15. Infact we will do it if City avoid defeat :-) The discount will need to be requested.
Long term it will be a blessing in disguise. Maybe an intentional error :-) On a more positive note City will beat Torquay tomorrow and get 3 points towards our ultimate target. To join in and celebrate the win Mango (Indian takeaway) on Bolton Road will offer 15% off any orders taken between 5pm and 7pm over £15. Infact we will do it if City avoid defeat :-) The discount will need to be requested. Mangotakeaway
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

StaffsBantam wrote:
An administrative error - so let's not be looking for a scapegoat. Subject to appeal, we are out. Plenty more for us to be thinking about, let's just get on with it.
Well said.

I find it difficult to believe some are actually blaming PP. If it was anyone's responsibility, it is likely to have been Baldwin's, but as the saying goes, que-sera-sera.

It is disappointing, but lets not start the blame game
[quote][p][bold]StaffsBantam[/bold] wrote: An administrative error - so let's not be looking for a scapegoat. Subject to appeal, we are out. Plenty more for us to be thinking about, let's just get on with it.[/p][/quote]Well said. I find it difficult to believe some are actually blaming PP. If it was anyone's responsibility, it is likely to have been Baldwin's, but as the saying goes, que-sera-sera. It is disappointing, but lets not start the blame game Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Fri 7 Dec 12

StaffsBantam says...

Mangotakeaway wrote:
Long term it will be a blessing in disguise.

Maybe an intentional error :-)

On a more positive note City will beat Torquay tomorrow and get 3 points towards our ultimate target.

To join in and celebrate the win Mango (Indian takeaway) on Bolton Road will offer 15% off any orders taken between 5pm and 7pm over £15. Infact we will do it if City avoid defeat :-) The discount will need to be requested.
Blatant advert............
[quote][p][bold]Mangotakeaway[/bold] wrote: Long term it will be a blessing in disguise. Maybe an intentional error :-) On a more positive note City will beat Torquay tomorrow and get 3 points towards our ultimate target. To join in and celebrate the win Mango (Indian takeaway) on Bolton Road will offer 15% off any orders taken between 5pm and 7pm over £15. Infact we will do it if City avoid defeat :-) The discount will need to be requested.[/p][/quote]Blatant advert............ StaffsBantam
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Fri 7 Dec 12

nowt fresh says...

BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.
[quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.[/p][/quote]If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!. nowt fresh
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

nowt fresh wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.
Yet they bend over backwards to allow Man U to ram it up them without kisses, even after devaluing the world's greatest knockout competition.

Winning through the early rounds in the FA Cup is a financial lifeline to the lower league clubs, the prize money so much better than the other cups. It is important we get to play this game, nearly 25k resting on it which outweighs what we have earned to date from the League Cup. We may have grounds for appeal if the statement above re Newcastle submitting the form late rather than ourselves but I think as we appealed and won re the Doyle red card the FA will want to 'get their own back'
[quote][p][bold]nowt fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.[/p][/quote]If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.[/p][/quote]Yet they bend over backwards to allow Man U to ram it up them without kisses, even after devaluing the world's greatest knockout competition. Winning through the early rounds in the FA Cup is a financial lifeline to the lower league clubs, the prize money so much better than the other cups. It is important we get to play this game, nearly 25k resting on it which outweighs what we have earned to date from the League Cup. We may have grounds for appeal if the statement above re Newcastle submitting the form late rather than ourselves but I think as we appealed and won re the Doyle red card the FA will want to 'get their own back' Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Fri 7 Dec 12

shoesmaker4 says...

lets get are heads back up and switch back on to the other games and cups still in come on city
lets get are heads back up and switch back on to the other games and cups still in come on city shoesmaker4
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12

StaffsBantam says...

BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him.

What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
Regardless, it was up to us to "Obtain WRITTEN Permission" - we didn't.
[quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.[/p][/quote]Regardless, it was up to us to "Obtain WRITTEN Permission" - we didn't. StaffsBantam
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Fri 7 Dec 12

spleen ventor says...

Probably a blessing in disguise but it doesn't stop the F.A from being shown up for what they are...double standards springs to mind.
West Ham fielded Carlos Tevez for 20 odd games in the 2006/07 season when he 'technically' wasn't eligible due to his contract being owned by a third party, they should have been docked every point they gained with him in the team...did they?...NO!
They relegated Sheffield United and just fined West Ham.
F.A = serial masturbaters!
Probably a blessing in disguise but it doesn't stop the F.A from being shown up for what they are...double standards springs to mind. West Ham fielded Carlos Tevez for 20 odd games in the 2006/07 season when he 'technically' wasn't eligible due to his contract being owned by a third party, they should have been docked every point they gained with him in the team...did they?...NO! They relegated Sheffield United and just fined West Ham. F.A = serial masturbaters! spleen ventor
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Fri 7 Dec 12

doneBD4 says...

it's p!$$ poor by City, but a a blessing in disguise, had we not got as far in the npower cup and pulled the gooner's out of the hat we'd very cheesed off!

I feel sorry for the fan's that got to the game........ what a waste of money!
it's p!$$ poor by City, but a a blessing in disguise, had we not got as far in the npower cup and pulled the gooner's out of the hat we'd very cheesed off! I feel sorry for the fan's that got to the game........ what a waste of money! doneBD4
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Village Bantam says...

oldmod wrote:
Managment error, three games + extra time and pens for nowt. We can all screw up, Parky may not be the manager wizard we all think he is! Let us hope this has not damaged team spirit. We need 3pts from Torquay on Saturday.
What a clown!

It's not 1970 - the manager doesn't send out tickets, print the programs and select the mascots.

Nor would he be the one doing the administration work either.

I keep re-reading what you've written to look for the slightest hint of humour but there's non there.

The joke isn't the text, it's the scribe.
[quote][p][bold]oldmod[/bold] wrote: Managment error, three games + extra time and pens for nowt. We can all screw up, Parky may not be the manager wizard we all think he is! Let us hope this has not damaged team spirit. We need 3pts from Torquay on Saturday.[/p][/quote]What a clown! It's not 1970 - the manager doesn't send out tickets, print the programs and select the mascots. Nor would he be the one doing the administration work either. I keep re-reading what you've written to look for the slightest hint of humour but there's non there. The joke isn't the text, it's the scribe. Village Bantam
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Edinburgh -bantam says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
nowt fresh wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.
Yet they bend over backwards to allow Man U to ram it up them without kisses, even after devaluing the world's greatest knockout competition. Winning through the early rounds in the FA Cup is a financial lifeline to the lower league clubs, the prize money so much better than the other cups. It is important we get to play this game, nearly 25k resting on it which outweighs what we have earned to date from the League Cup. We may have grounds for appeal if the statement above re Newcastle submitting the form late rather than ourselves but I think as we appealed and won re the Doyle red card the FA will want to 'get their own back'
Hi Wamps

The FA lost all credibility when they appealed against Rooney's thuggery.

I'm worried that "elite" ref Mike Dean, who will be on first name terms with some Arsenal players, may object to the robust tackles by City players.

Having read the FA explanation, I'm thinking of confessing to the West Riding FA that I scored a goal in a 1965 Red Triangle league match under someone else's name because I wasn't registered in time!
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowt fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.[/p][/quote]If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.[/p][/quote]Yet they bend over backwards to allow Man U to ram it up them without kisses, even after devaluing the world's greatest knockout competition. Winning through the early rounds in the FA Cup is a financial lifeline to the lower league clubs, the prize money so much better than the other cups. It is important we get to play this game, nearly 25k resting on it which outweighs what we have earned to date from the League Cup. We may have grounds for appeal if the statement above re Newcastle submitting the form late rather than ourselves but I think as we appealed and won re the Doyle red card the FA will want to 'get their own back'[/p][/quote]Hi Wamps The FA lost all credibility when they appealed against Rooney's thuggery. I'm worried that "elite" ref Mike Dean, who will be on first name terms with some Arsenal players, may object to the robust tackles by City players. Having read the FA explanation, I'm thinking of confessing to the West Riding FA that I scored a goal in a 1965 Red Triangle league match under someone else's name because I wasn't registered in time! Edinburgh -bantam
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Fri 7 Dec 12

nowt fresh says...

The FA may still have some on the commitee who may remember it Edinburgh -bantam keep stum mate...!!.
The FA may still have some on the commitee who may remember it Edinburgh -bantam keep stum mate...!!. nowt fresh
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Edinburgh -bantam wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
nowt fresh wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.
Yet they bend over backwards to allow Man U to ram it up them without kisses, even after devaluing the world's greatest knockout competition. Winning through the early rounds in the FA Cup is a financial lifeline to the lower league clubs, the prize money so much better than the other cups. It is important we get to play this game, nearly 25k resting on it which outweighs what we have earned to date from the League Cup. We may have grounds for appeal if the statement above re Newcastle submitting the form late rather than ourselves but I think as we appealed and won re the Doyle red card the FA will want to 'get their own back'
Hi Wamps

The FA lost all credibility when they appealed against Rooney's thuggery.

I'm worried that "elite" ref Mike Dean, who will be on first name terms with some Arsenal players, may object to the robust tackles by City players.

Having read the FA explanation, I'm thinking of confessing to the West Riding FA that I scored a goal in a 1965 Red Triangle league match under someone else's name because I wasn't registered in time!
I struggled to play under 'a.n other' as most local sides and ALL the refs knew me EB. You most certainly are older than me though, I played in the last year of the Red Triangle league for Negas.

I think Mike Dean will be keen to clamp down on our 4th division thugs as you say, so we'll just have to beat them with skill :) and a freezing dressing room
[quote][p][bold]Edinburgh -bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowt fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.[/p][/quote]If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.[/p][/quote]Yet they bend over backwards to allow Man U to ram it up them without kisses, even after devaluing the world's greatest knockout competition. Winning through the early rounds in the FA Cup is a financial lifeline to the lower league clubs, the prize money so much better than the other cups. It is important we get to play this game, nearly 25k resting on it which outweighs what we have earned to date from the League Cup. We may have grounds for appeal if the statement above re Newcastle submitting the form late rather than ourselves but I think as we appealed and won re the Doyle red card the FA will want to 'get their own back'[/p][/quote]Hi Wamps The FA lost all credibility when they appealed against Rooney's thuggery. I'm worried that "elite" ref Mike Dean, who will be on first name terms with some Arsenal players, may object to the robust tackles by City players. Having read the FA explanation, I'm thinking of confessing to the West Riding FA that I scored a goal in a 1965 Red Triangle league match under someone else's name because I wasn't registered in time![/p][/quote]I struggled to play under 'a.n other' as most local sides and ALL the refs knew me EB. You most certainly are older than me though, I played in the last year of the Red Triangle league for Negas. I think Mike Dean will be keen to clamp down on our 4th division thugs as you say, so we'll just have to beat them with skill :) and a freezing dressing room Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Fri 7 Dec 12

RuggerTyke says...

bobbyzelmut wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
That isn't the issue TVOR, it was the late submission of him as a registered player for the competition. He was allowed to play by both his parent club and the FA but this is a clerical error by not submitting the permission to play form in time.
Which wouldn't have been an issue if we had played the game on Saturday as opposed to being forced to play on a Friday night due to policing issues related to Leeds and Huddersfield playing each other.
Surprised not more has been mande of this, is it true ??.

So not only were we given a stupid fixture on a friday resulting in a small crowd - which probably would have been similiar on Sat but - , we've also lost a day and resulted in expulsion.

Brilliant!
[quote][p][bold]bobbyzelmut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: That isn't the issue TVOR, it was the late submission of him as a registered player for the competition. He was allowed to play by both his parent club and the FA but this is a clerical error by not submitting the permission to play form in time.[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't have been an issue if we had played the game on Saturday as opposed to being forced to play on a Friday night due to policing issues related to Leeds and Huddersfield playing each other.[/p][/quote]Surprised not more has been mande of this, is it true ??. So not only were we given a stupid fixture on a friday resulting in a small crowd - which probably would have been similiar on Sat but - , we've also lost a day and resulted in expulsion. Brilliant! RuggerTyke
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Fri 7 Dec 12

LaCe78 says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
LaCe78 wrote: The treble is still on boys! Personally I'm not in the slightest bit bothered, we've got so many games coming up and the other two cup competitions are the ones we can do well in! Who wants to go to Southend away anyway! Great news if you think about it!!! CTID!!!
But what if it wasn't Sarfend? What if we were to play Bury? We could give the kids/reserves another run out to keep them fresh (due to lack of reserve football). Then, who knows who we may have drawn in Rd3 (subject to winning through). I'd imagine that if we do well next week against the Ar5e and cover ourselves in some kind of glory (not necessarily winning, but running them close), then a trip to Anfield could have been selected for TV. More revenue and something for PP to spend in January? As it happens, we no longer have to travel to Brentford or wherever in rd2, which is good news, but there is no money for team strengthening in January. It is already been suggested that the Ar5e money will be swallowed up to repay the deficit.
I see your point but do we necessarily need many players in Jan with Davies and Reid returning soon anyway!?

I think the board will pull out the stops this year to help our squad 'over the finishing line' and the lack of another cup game could be seen as a much needed recharging period, which may result in us doing better in the cups were still in, and the league, generating cash anyway!
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LaCe78[/bold] wrote: The treble is still on boys! Personally I'm not in the slightest bit bothered, we've got so many games coming up and the other two cup competitions are the ones we can do well in! Who wants to go to Southend away anyway! Great news if you think about it!!! CTID!!![/p][/quote]But what if it wasn't Sarfend? What if we were to play Bury? We could give the kids/reserves another run out to keep them fresh (due to lack of reserve football). Then, who knows who we may have drawn in Rd3 (subject to winning through). I'd imagine that if we do well next week against the Ar5e and cover ourselves in some kind of glory (not necessarily winning, but running them close), then a trip to Anfield could have been selected for TV. More revenue and something for PP to spend in January? As it happens, we no longer have to travel to Brentford or wherever in rd2, which is good news, but there is no money for team strengthening in January. It is already been suggested that the Ar5e money will be swallowed up to repay the deficit.[/p][/quote]I see your point but do we necessarily need many players in Jan with Davies and Reid returning soon anyway!? I think the board will pull out the stops this year to help our squad 'over the finishing line' and the lack of another cup game could be seen as a much needed recharging period, which may result in us doing better in the cups were still in, and the league, generating cash anyway! LaCe78
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Victor Clayton says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Edinburgh -bantam wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
nowt fresh wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.
Yet they bend over backwards to allow Man U to ram it up them without kisses, even after devaluing the world's greatest knockout competition. Winning through the early rounds in the FA Cup is a financial lifeline to the lower league clubs, the prize money so much better than the other cups. It is important we get to play this game, nearly 25k resting on it which outweighs what we have earned to date from the League Cup. We may have grounds for appeal if the statement above re Newcastle submitting the form late rather than ourselves but I think as we appealed and won re the Doyle red card the FA will want to 'get their own back'
Hi Wamps The FA lost all credibility when they appealed against Rooney's thuggery. I'm worried that "elite" ref Mike Dean, who will be on first name terms with some Arsenal players, may object to the robust tackles by City players. Having read the FA explanation, I'm thinking of confessing to the West Riding FA that I scored a goal in a 1965 Red Triangle league match under someone else's name because I wasn't registered in time!
I struggled to play under 'a.n other' as most local sides and ALL the refs knew me EB. You most certainly are older than me though, I played in the last year of the Red Triangle league for Negas. I think Mike Dean will be keen to clamp down on our 4th division thugs as you say, so we'll just have to beat them with skill :) and a freezing dressing room
We had a lad playing for us under a different name. the ref was booking him and he shouted over to our manager "Dave, whats my name again?"
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edinburgh -bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowt fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.[/p][/quote]If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.[/p][/quote]Yet they bend over backwards to allow Man U to ram it up them without kisses, even after devaluing the world's greatest knockout competition. Winning through the early rounds in the FA Cup is a financial lifeline to the lower league clubs, the prize money so much better than the other cups. It is important we get to play this game, nearly 25k resting on it which outweighs what we have earned to date from the League Cup. We may have grounds for appeal if the statement above re Newcastle submitting the form late rather than ourselves but I think as we appealed and won re the Doyle red card the FA will want to 'get their own back'[/p][/quote]Hi Wamps The FA lost all credibility when they appealed against Rooney's thuggery. I'm worried that "elite" ref Mike Dean, who will be on first name terms with some Arsenal players, may object to the robust tackles by City players. Having read the FA explanation, I'm thinking of confessing to the West Riding FA that I scored a goal in a 1965 Red Triangle league match under someone else's name because I wasn't registered in time![/p][/quote]I struggled to play under 'a.n other' as most local sides and ALL the refs knew me EB. You most certainly are older than me though, I played in the last year of the Red Triangle league for Negas. I think Mike Dean will be keen to clamp down on our 4th division thugs as you say, so we'll just have to beat them with skill :) and a freezing dressing room[/p][/quote]We had a lad playing for us under a different name. the ref was booking him and he shouted over to our manager "Dave, whats my name again?" Victor Clayton
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Fri 7 Dec 12

audal says...

Admin ERROR!!.blooming admin ERROR!!, this is a massive mistake by the club who are now operating as a 4th div. outfit. i have seen work people lose jobs because of admin ERROR.but after 55 years of support i have never ever seen City been booted out of a competition.
Admin ERROR!!.blooming admin ERROR!!, this is a massive mistake by the club who are now operating as a 4th div. outfit. i have seen work people lose jobs because of admin ERROR.but after 55 years of support i have never ever seen City been booted out of a competition. audal
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Fri 7 Dec 12

CTID says...

Can't we just decide the appeal on penalties?
Can't we just decide the appeal on penalties? CTID
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Fri 7 Dec 12

balbrigganfc says...

It could be worse...at least we get to play Arse Nil this Tuesday, and Torquay tomorrow.

Come on you Bantams, CTID
It could be worse...at least we get to play Arse Nil this Tuesday, and Torquay tomorrow. Come on you Bantams, CTID balbrigganfc
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Fri 7 Dec 12

StaffsBantam says...

We have decided to appeal it
We have decided to appeal it StaffsBantam
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Fri 7 Dec 12

oldmod says...

Village Bantam wrote:
oldmod wrote:
Managment error, three games + extra time and pens for nowt. We can all screw up, Parky may not be the manager wizard we all think he is! Let us hope this has not damaged team spirit. We need 3pts from Torquay on Saturday.
What a clown!

It's not 1970 - the manager doesn't send out tickets, print the programs and select the mascots.

Nor would he be the one doing the administration work either.

I keep re-reading what you've written to look for the slightest hint of humour but there's non there.

The joke isn't the text, it's the scribe.
No humour intended,have not missed a cup game ths season and was lookng forward to replay at Bentford. Going to Northampton twice in two weeks is no joke.
[quote][p][bold]Village Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldmod[/bold] wrote: Managment error, three games + extra time and pens for nowt. We can all screw up, Parky may not be the manager wizard we all think he is! Let us hope this has not damaged team spirit. We need 3pts from Torquay on Saturday.[/p][/quote]What a clown! It's not 1970 - the manager doesn't send out tickets, print the programs and select the mascots. Nor would he be the one doing the administration work either. I keep re-reading what you've written to look for the slightest hint of humour but there's non there. The joke isn't the text, it's the scribe.[/p][/quote]No humour intended,have not missed a cup game ths season and was lookng forward to replay at Bentford. Going to Northampton twice in two weeks is no joke. oldmod
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Fri 7 Dec 12

silverbantam says...

Kath Brown is the club secretary whose responsibility this was.

Why have I never heard of her?

In the past we've had Sean Harvey and John Pollard as club secretaries. It is an important job and any cockup can have massive consequences.
Imaging if we'd have got Man Utd away in the 3rd round ?
Kath Brown is the club secretary whose responsibility this was. Why have I never heard of her? In the past we've had Sean Harvey and John Pollard as club secretaries. It is an important job and any cockup can have massive consequences. Imaging if we'd have got Man Utd away in the 3rd round ? silverbantam
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Mangotakeaway says...

StaffsBantam wrote:
Mangotakeaway wrote:
Long term it will be a blessing in disguise.

Maybe an intentional error :-)

On a more positive note City will beat Torquay tomorrow and get 3 points towards our ultimate target.

To join in and celebrate the win Mango (Indian takeaway) on Bolton Road will offer 15% off any orders taken between 5pm and 7pm over £15. Infact we will do it if City avoid defeat :-) The discount will need to be requested.
Blatant advert............
Staffs, in a sense you right because it wasn't typed by accident :-)

As the owner of the take away and City follower, then sharing the success and trying where possible to get this offer to City fans only is the idea!
[quote][p][bold]StaffsBantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mangotakeaway[/bold] wrote: Long term it will be a blessing in disguise. Maybe an intentional error :-) On a more positive note City will beat Torquay tomorrow and get 3 points towards our ultimate target. To join in and celebrate the win Mango (Indian takeaway) on Bolton Road will offer 15% off any orders taken between 5pm and 7pm over £15. Infact we will do it if City avoid defeat :-) The discount will need to be requested.[/p][/quote]Blatant advert............[/p][/quote]Staffs, in a sense you right because it wasn't typed by accident :-) As the owner of the take away and City follower, then sharing the success and trying where possible to get this offer to City fans only is the idea! Mangotakeaway
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Fri 7 Dec 12

CTID says...

silverbantam wrote:
Kath Brown is the club secretary whose responsibility this was. Why have I never heard of her? In the past we've had Sean Harvey and John Pollard as club secretaries. It is an important job and any cockup can have massive consequences. Imaging if we'd have got Man Utd away in the 3rd round ?
WITCH!! BURN THE WITCH!!!

Stop looking for a scapegoat... if it has happened then it's devastating but, Jesus, let's not start personally attacking people and naming names - the 'club' has made amistake (if it wasn't Newcastle), let's please leave it at that
[quote][p][bold]silverbantam[/bold] wrote: Kath Brown is the club secretary whose responsibility this was. Why have I never heard of her? In the past we've had Sean Harvey and John Pollard as club secretaries. It is an important job and any cockup can have massive consequences. Imaging if we'd have got Man Utd away in the 3rd round ?[/p][/quote]WITCH!! BURN THE WITCH!!! Stop looking for a scapegoat... if it has happened then it's devastating but, Jesus, let's not start personally attacking people and naming names - the 'club' has made amistake (if it wasn't Newcastle), let's please leave it at that CTID
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Edinburgh -bantam says...

StaffsBantam wrote:
We have decided to appeal it
Staffs

Who's decided to appeal-T&A readers?
[quote][p][bold]StaffsBantam[/bold] wrote: We have decided to appeal it[/p][/quote]Staffs Who's decided to appeal-T&A readers? Edinburgh -bantam
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12

StaffsBantam says...

Just me Al
Just me Al StaffsBantam
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12

educated archie says...

I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620
I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620 educated archie
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Fri 7 Dec 12

340stopper says...

Unproffesional full stop.
Unproffesional full stop. 340stopper
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Fri 7 Dec 12

TirNaNog says...

educated archie wrote:
I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620
I'm sure it made sense in your head!

Who cares. We aren't going to win the FA Cup. Gives us a break between Southend and Wycombe away as well. Write to the FA and congratulate them on being the first to manage to get us out of a Cup competition this season and send them a City pennant. Let the old duffers get back to scuttling the latest "secretary" over the photocopier at Lancaster Gate!
[quote][p][bold]educated archie[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620[/p][/quote]I'm sure it made sense in your head! Who cares. We aren't going to win the FA Cup. Gives us a break between Southend and Wycombe away as well. Write to the FA and congratulate them on being the first to manage to get us out of a Cup competition this season and send them a City pennant. Let the old duffers get back to scuttling the latest "secretary" over the photocopier at Lancaster Gate! TirNaNog
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Fri 7 Dec 12

macca1969 says...

educated archie wrote:
I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620
Well for a start it was fifteen quid a ticket not twenty five, most of the ground was closed so attendance was really low and finally you Muppet we were given a ticket stub in entry so we who actually went have proof not that any TRUE fan would want to hang the club for a genuine mistake
[quote][p][bold]educated archie[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620[/p][/quote]Well for a start it was fifteen quid a ticket not twenty five, most of the ground was closed so attendance was really low and finally you Muppet we were given a ticket stub in entry so we who actually went have proof not that any TRUE fan would want to hang the club for a genuine mistake macca1969
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Fri 7 Dec 12

macca1969 says...

Personally I wouldn't have appealed and on top of that I would have sent an under sixteen team to play next years cup competition. Its a joke cup now anyway devalued over the years by the Premier league. Christ they even play premiership games now on cup final day with an evening kick off. No one cares anymore maybe the club should just boycott it completely from now on
Personally I wouldn't have appealed and on top of that I would have sent an under sixteen team to play next years cup competition. Its a joke cup now anyway devalued over the years by the Premier league. Christ they even play premiership games now on cup final day with an evening kick off. No one cares anymore maybe the club should just boycott it completely from now on macca1969
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Fri 7 Dec 12

nowt fresh says...

balbrigganfc wrote:
It could be worse...at least we get to play Arse Nil this Tuesday, and Torquay tomorrow. Come on you Bantams, CTID
WHAT another two amazing predictions balbrigganfc were playing Arsenal on Tuesday and Torquay tomorrow unbelievable predictions...!!
[quote][p][bold]balbrigganfc[/bold] wrote: It could be worse...at least we get to play Arse Nil this Tuesday, and Torquay tomorrow. Come on you Bantams, CTID[/p][/quote]WHAT another two amazing predictions balbrigganfc were playing Arsenal on Tuesday and Torquay tomorrow unbelievable predictions...!! nowt fresh
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Fri 7 Dec 12

nowt fresh says...

educated archie wrote:
I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620
I have a stub from the Brentford game educated archie and so do the three lad's I took ??.
[quote][p][bold]educated archie[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620[/p][/quote]I have a stub from the Brentford game educated archie and so do the three lad's I took ??. nowt fresh
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Fri 7 Dec 12

BigFigure says...

RuggerTyke wrote:
bobbyzelmut wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
That isn't the issue TVOR, it was the late submission of him as a registered player for the competition. He was allowed to play by both his parent club and the FA but this is a clerical error by not submitting the permission to play form in time.
Which wouldn't have been an issue if we had played the game on Saturday as opposed to being forced to play on a Friday night due to policing issues related to Leeds and Huddersfield playing each other.
Surprised not more has been mande of this, is it true ??.

So not only were we given a stupid fixture on a friday resulting in a small crowd - which probably would have been similiar on Sat but - , we've also lost a day and resulted in expulsion.

Brilliant!
The FA regulations state that loan players must be registered by noon on the Friday preceding the dates allocated for games in each round. So even if we'd played on Saturday, he'd have been ineligible
[quote][p][bold]RuggerTyke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobbyzelmut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: That isn't the issue TVOR, it was the late submission of him as a registered player for the competition. He was allowed to play by both his parent club and the FA but this is a clerical error by not submitting the permission to play form in time.[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't have been an issue if we had played the game on Saturday as opposed to being forced to play on a Friday night due to policing issues related to Leeds and Huddersfield playing each other.[/p][/quote]Surprised not more has been mande of this, is it true ??. So not only were we given a stupid fixture on a friday resulting in a small crowd - which probably would have been similiar on Sat but - , we've also lost a day and resulted in expulsion. Brilliant![/p][/quote]The FA regulations state that loan players must be registered by noon on the Friday preceding the dates allocated for games in each round. So even if we'd played on Saturday, he'd have been ineligible BigFigure
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Fri 7 Dec 12

lozkel says...

educated archie wrote:
I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620
with a pathetic quote like yours,i'd be tempted to remove the educated part of your user name
[quote][p][bold]educated archie[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if Bradford are going to refund the Bradford fans that turned up to watch the Brentford game,oops cannot do that due to the fact it was an all cash affair so no ticket stubs to return, so that was £25 down the swanny it also explains the rather dubious figure of 3,620[/p][/quote]with a pathetic quote like yours,i'd be tempted to remove the educated part of your user name lozkel
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Fri 7 Dec 12

bcfc1903 says...

If BCFC's appeal fails it could work out as a blessing in disguise..our lads never know when they are beaten so a rest just before Christmas will be well earned and nicely timed with the hectic programme of games over the holiday period.

**
Good luck to all BCFC management and players for the Torquay United game..

**
We shout with pride...we'll never hide...Claret and Amber.
If BCFC's appeal fails it could work out as a blessing in disguise..our lads never know when they are beaten so a rest just before Christmas will be well earned and nicely timed with the hectic programme of games over the holiday period. ** Good luck to all BCFC management and players for the Torquay United game.. ** We shout with pride...we'll never hide...Claret and Amber. bcfc1903
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Fri 7 Dec 12

PaddyBantam says...

Amasing that some actually put the blame at the door of PP - now that is a joke. For the individual to name the lady who is the administrator is slander, do you know it was her? For those wanting a refund, you have got to be joking me...Just goes to show there are some right arse holes on this site, never made a mistake?? Christ it must be hard being so perfect. I agree with Waynus - yeah i'm shocked too!!- not been able to physically beat City over 90 minutes in a cup competition, we get knocked out by an admin error, i can live with that!! No doubt someone has felt the rath of Mark Lawn for this, which can't have been pleasant...!!! and finally the blame merchants on here, have a long word with yourselves you have made yourselves look ridiculous.
Amasing that some actually put the blame at the door of PP - now that is a joke. For the individual to name the lady who is the administrator is slander, do you know it was her? For those wanting a refund, you have got to be joking me...Just goes to show there are some right arse holes on this site, never made a mistake?? Christ it must be hard being so perfect. I agree with Waynus - yeah i'm shocked too!!- not been able to physically beat City over 90 minutes in a cup competition, we get knocked out by an admin error, i can live with that!! No doubt someone has felt the rath of Mark Lawn for this, which can't have been pleasant...!!! and finally the blame merchants on here, have a long word with yourselves you have made yourselves look ridiculous. PaddyBantam
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12

tyker2 says...

silverbantam wrote:
Kath Brown is the club secretary whose responsibility this was.

Why have I never heard of her?

In the past we've had Sean Harvey and John Pollard as club secretaries. It is an important job and any cockup can have massive consequences.
Imaging if we'd have got Man Utd away in the 3rd round ?
are you blaming her and,if so, what is your evidence? probably nil
[quote][p][bold]silverbantam[/bold] wrote: Kath Brown is the club secretary whose responsibility this was. Why have I never heard of her? In the past we've had Sean Harvey and John Pollard as club secretaries. It is an important job and any cockup can have massive consequences. Imaging if we'd have got Man Utd away in the 3rd round ?[/p][/quote]are you blaming her and,if so, what is your evidence? probably nil tyker2
  • Score: 0

3:34am Sat 8 Dec 12

Mr Perks says...

nowt fresh wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
BigFigure wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.
FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....
Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????
Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.
If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.
It's: PEDANTIC, not 'PERDANTIC'. Now that's what I call PEDANTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]nowt fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.[/p][/quote]Don't remember the incident you are referring to, however, the article hasn't said the loanees weren't allowed to play. This is simply an administrative error. Had the game been played, as original planned, on the Saturday, the kid would have been able to play, as the paperwork would have been completed in time.[/p][/quote]FA Cup regulations state that players have to be registered by noon on the Friday before ANY game....so he'd still have been ineligible on Saturday...FA Cup Rule 15 (j) .....[/p][/quote]Fair enough. But my point still stands. This wasn't about the player being unavailable to play; it was more about the time we registered him. What I don't understand is that we signed two players on the Thursday (Blair Turgott and Curtis Good) and yet we have only been charged with playing Good. How come we managed to register Turgott before the noon deadline, but not Curtis Good????[/p][/quote]Hearing that it was Newcastle who failed to submit paperwork from their end, and that City had assumed they would have by the deadline, without any confirmation from them.[/p][/quote]If it is/was Newcastle who failed to submit the paper work in time BigFigure the FA are being perdantic to say the least,so the FA are saying not merely have we to make sure our documentation is correct but to also make sure Newcastle documentation is correct...!!!.[/p][/quote]It's: PEDANTIC, not 'PERDANTIC'. Now that's what I call PEDANTRY!!!!!!!!!!!! Mr Perks
  • Score: 0

10:12am Sat 8 Dec 12

nowt fresh says...

Quite right Mr Perks
Must do better as my old school master used to say...!!!
You aren't "Mr bullet head Garnett" are you by any chance :-)).
Quite right Mr Perks Must do better as my old school master used to say...!!! You aren't "Mr bullet head Garnett" are you by any chance :-)). nowt fresh
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Sat 8 Dec 12

bcfc1903 says...

PaddyBantam wrote:
Amasing that some actually put the blame at the door of PP - now that is a joke. For the individual to name the lady who is the administrator is slander, do you know it was her? For those wanting a refund, you have got to be joking me...Just goes to show there are some right arse holes on this site, never made a mistake?? Christ it must be hard being so perfect. I agree with Waynus - yeah i'm shocked too!!- not been able to physically beat City over 90 minutes in a cup competition, we get knocked out by an admin error, i can live with that!! No doubt someone has felt the rath of Mark Lawn for this, which can't have been pleasant...!!! and finally the blame merchants on here, have a long word with yourselves you have made yourselves look ridiculous.
Agree with all that Paddy....well said fella!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]PaddyBantam[/bold] wrote: Amasing that some actually put the blame at the door of PP - now that is a joke. For the individual to name the lady who is the administrator is slander, do you know it was her? For those wanting a refund, you have got to be joking me...Just goes to show there are some right arse holes on this site, never made a mistake?? Christ it must be hard being so perfect. I agree with Waynus - yeah i'm shocked too!!- not been able to physically beat City over 90 minutes in a cup competition, we get knocked out by an admin error, i can live with that!! No doubt someone has felt the rath of Mark Lawn for this, which can't have been pleasant...!!! and finally the blame merchants on here, have a long word with yourselves you have made yourselves look ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Agree with all that Paddy....well said fella!!!!! bcfc1903
  • Score: 0

1:45am Thu 13 Dec 12

The obvious says...

Come on city. Congrats on winning the appeal
Come on city. Congrats on winning the appeal The obvious
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree