Updated: Bradford City appeal against FA Cup expulsion (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email
Updated: Bradford City appeal against FA Cup expulsion
11:15am Friday 7th December 2012 in Bantams By Sports Desk
Loan defender Curtis Good played for City in their FA Cup tie against Brentford
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)
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
11:30am Fri 7 Dec 12
Saltaire Bantam
says...
11:35am Fri 7 Dec 12
Prisoner Cell Block A
says...
11:38am Fri 7 Dec 12
bobbyzelmut
says...
11:40am Fri 7 Dec 12
Saltaire Bantam wrote: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.
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
bettyswollocks
says...
11:41am Fri 7 Dec 12
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!
bctomuk2
says...
11:41am Fri 7 Dec 12
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.
bobbyzelmut
says...
11:42am Fri 7 Dec 12
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote: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.
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.
"get over it!"
says...
11:44am Fri 7 Dec 12
nowt fresh
says...
11:45am Fri 7 Dec 12
Saltaire Bantam wrote: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...!!!.
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
macca1969
says...
11:46am Fri 7 Dec 12
"get over it!"
says...
11:48am Fri 7 Dec 12
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!
bigang02
says...
11:49am Fri 7 Dec 12
"get over it!"
says...
11:52am Fri 7 Dec 12
bigang02 wrote: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!
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
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
11:53am Fri 7 Dec 12
"get over it!"
says...
11:57am Fri 7 Dec 12
oldmod
says...
11:59am Fri 7 Dec 12
Go Torps! Yer flying.
says...
11:59am Fri 7 Dec 12
nowt fresh
says...
12:02pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Just 2 Wembley appearances TVOR as we will finish in the top three, so no need for any play off's :-)).
Just the 3 trips to Wembley next year then.
Farsley Bantam
says...
12:05pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Who gives a f*ck
We're super City and we're goin up!
Birky_Neil
says...
12:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12
"get over it!"
says...
12:11pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Bingban
says...
12:12pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Black mark though
Worth appealing just for justice and sense
Bungle's Bantam's
says...
12:14pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Waynus1971
says...
12:20pm Fri 7 Dec 12
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
says...
12:23pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: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.
Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
Saltaire Bantam
says...
12:27pm Fri 7 Dec 12
tyker2
says...
12:30pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Who was responsible for filing the appopriate registrations?
tyker2
says...
12:36pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Waynus1971
says...
12:40pm Fri 7 Dec 12
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....!
BigFigure
says...
12:42pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Waynus1971 wrote: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) .....
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: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.
Hmm, I seem to remember taking alot of abuse on this site when questioning if these loanees could play in the Cup competitions.
LaCe78
says...
12:52pm Fri 7 Dec 12
CTID!!!
Waynus1971
says...
12:53pm Fri 7 Dec 12
BigFigure wrote: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.
Waynus1971 wrote: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) .....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.
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
says...
12:59pm Fri 7 Dec 12
LaCe78 wrote: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?
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!!!
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.
tyker2
says...
1:00pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Waynus1971 wrote:possibly because clearance for turgott came through a lot erlier than Good:only a guess but a possible answer to your question
BigFigure wrote: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.
Waynus1971 wrote: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) .....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.
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????
Victor Clayton
says...
1:03pm Fri 7 Dec 12
as the saying goes - lets concentrate on the league (and our other cups).
BigFigure
says...
1:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Waynus1971 wrote: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) .....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.
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????
BANT MAN
says...
1:10pm Fri 7 Dec 12
BigFigure
says...
1:11pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Waynus1971 wrote: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) .....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.
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????
StaffsBantam
says...
1:19pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Mangotakeaway
says...
1:27pm Fri 7 Dec 12
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.
Waynus1971
says...
1:40pm Fri 7 Dec 12
StaffsBantam wrote:Well said.
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.
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
StaffsBantam
says...
1:43pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Mangotakeaway wrote:Blatant advert............
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.
nowt fresh
says...
1:47pm Fri 7 Dec 12
BigFigure wrote: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...!!!.
Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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) .....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.
Prisoner Cell Block A
says...
1:58pm Fri 7 Dec 12
nowt fresh wrote: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.
BigFigure wrote: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...!!!.
Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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) .....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.
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'
shoesmaker4
says...
2:06pm Fri 7 Dec 12
StaffsBantam
says...
2:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12
BigFigure wrote:Regardless, it was up to us to "Obtain WRITTEN Permission" - we didn't.
Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Waynus1971 wrote: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) .....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.
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????
spleen ventor
says...
2:18pm Fri 7 Dec 12
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!
doneBD4
says...
2:18pm Fri 7 Dec 12
I feel sorry for the fan's that got to the game........ what a waste of money!
Village Bantam
says...
2:21pm Fri 7 Dec 12
oldmod wrote:What a clown!
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.
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.
Edinburgh -bantam
says...
2:42pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:Hi Wamps
nowt fresh wrote: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'BigFigure wrote: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...!!!.Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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) .....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.
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!
nowt fresh
says...
3:03pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Prisoner Cell Block A
says...
3:17pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Edinburgh -bantam wrote: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.
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:Hi Wamps
nowt fresh wrote: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'BigFigure wrote: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...!!!.Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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) .....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.
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 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
RuggerTyke
says...
3:27pm Fri 7 Dec 12
bobbyzelmut wrote:Surprised not more has been mande of this, is it true ??.
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote: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.
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.
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!
LaCe78
says...
3:32pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Waynus1971 wrote:I see your point but do we necessarily need many players in Jan with Davies and Reid returning soon anyway!?
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 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!
Victor Clayton
says...
3:38pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote: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?"
Edinburgh -bantam wrote: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 roomPrisoner Cell Block A wrote: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!nowt fresh wrote: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'BigFigure wrote: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...!!!.Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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) .....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.
audal
says...
3:46pm Fri 7 Dec 12
CTID
says...
3:58pm Fri 7 Dec 12
balbrigganfc
says...
4:05pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Come on you Bantams, CTID
StaffsBantam
says...
4:21pm Fri 7 Dec 12
oldmod
says...
4:28pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Village Bantam wrote: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 wrote:What a clown!
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.
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.
silverbantam
says...
4:30pm Fri 7 Dec 12
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 ?
Mangotakeaway
says...
4:35pm Fri 7 Dec 12
StaffsBantam wrote:Staffs, in a sense you right because it wasn't typed by accident :-)
Mangotakeaway wrote:Blatant advert............
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.
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!
CTID
says...
4:39pm Fri 7 Dec 12
silverbantam wrote:WITCH!! BURN THE WITCH!!!
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 ?
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
Edinburgh -bantam
says...
4:58pm Fri 7 Dec 12
StaffsBantam wrote:Staffs
We have decided to appeal it
Who's decided to appeal-T&A readers?
StaffsBantam
says...
5:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12
educated archie
says...
5:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12
340stopper
says...
5:14pm Fri 7 Dec 12
TirNaNog
says...
5:23pm Fri 7 Dec 12
educated archie wrote:I'm sure it made sense in your head!
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
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!
macca1969
says...
5:25pm Fri 7 Dec 12
educated archie wrote: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
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
macca1969
says...
5:30pm Fri 7 Dec 12
nowt fresh
says...
6:13pm Fri 7 Dec 12
balbrigganfc wrote:WHAT another two amazing predictions balbrigganfc were playing Arsenal on Tuesday and Torquay tomorrow unbelievable predictions...!!
It could be worse...at least we get to play Arse Nil this Tuesday, and Torquay tomorrow. Come on you Bantams, CTID
nowt fresh
says...
6:18pm Fri 7 Dec 12
educated archie wrote:I have a stub from the Brentford game educated archie and so do the three lad's I took ??.
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
BigFigure
says...
6:27pm Fri 7 Dec 12
RuggerTyke wrote: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
bobbyzelmut wrote:Surprised not more has been mande of this, is it true ??.
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote: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.
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.
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!
lozkel
says...
7:02pm Fri 7 Dec 12
educated archie wrote:with a pathetic quote like yours,i'd be tempted to remove the educated part of your user name
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
bcfc1903
says...
7:19pm Fri 7 Dec 12
**
Good luck to all BCFC management and players for the Torquay United game..
**
We shout with pride...we'll never hide...Claret and Amber.
PaddyBantam
says...
9:44pm Fri 7 Dec 12
tyker2
says...
10:09pm Fri 7 Dec 12
silverbantam wrote:are you blaming her and,if so, what is your evidence? probably nil
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 ?
Mr Perks
says...
3:34am Sat 8 Dec 12
nowt fresh wrote:It's: PEDANTIC, not 'PERDANTIC'. Now that's what I call PEDANTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!
BigFigure wrote: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...!!!.
Waynus1971 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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) .....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.
nowt fresh
says...
10:12am Sat 8 Dec 12
Must do better as my old school master used to say...!!!
You aren't "Mr bullet head Garnett" are you by any chance :-)).
bcfc1903
says...
12:27pm Sat 8 Dec 12
PaddyBantam wrote:Agree with all that Paddy....well said fella!!!!!
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.
The obvious
says...
1:45am Thu 13 Dec 12
bobbyzelmut says...
11:28am Fri 7 Dec 12