We’ll take it on chin if we lose FA Cup appeal, says Bantams boss Phil Parkinson

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: City's expulsion from the FA Cup would have stung more if they had drawn Manchester United in the third round, says Phil Parkinson City's expulsion from the FA Cup would have stung more if they had drawn Manchester United in the third round, says Phil Parkinson

Phil Parkinson insisted City had been thrown out of the FA Cup because of a “very minor administrative error”.

The Bantams fielded on-loan Newcastle defender Curtis Good against Brentford with permission from his parent club but without the correct paperwork having been completed.

Good did not feature on Saturday as Parkinson only wanted one defender (Tom Naylor) on the bench but City will have their appeal against the expulsion heard in London tomorrow.

Parkinson said: “I want our supporters to know it was a very minor administrative error. The main reason I brought in Curtis and Blair (Turgott) was because I wanted to play them in the cups.

“The first question I asked Alan Pardew was ‘I’d like Curtis, but can he play in the FA Cup?’

“He said ‘yes, no problem’. It was just a line that wasn’t on the agreement and with everything going on at the club the administrative staff haven’t picked that up.”

Parkinson appeared resigned to losing the appeal as he said: “If we had drawn Manchester United away in the third round I think it would have been a massive deal and worth a hell of a lot of money.

“But in reality we’re doing really well in the Capital One Cup and the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy.

“That Brentford replay falls in between Southend away and Wycombe away.

“If we win the appeal then bring it on, but if we don’t then we’ll take it on the chin.

“I think our supporters understand that despite the cups, and we're doing well in them anyway, the league is our priority.”

Good is eligible to play against Arsenal and could earn a place on the bench as Naylor is unavailable to play on Tuesday.

Parkinson added: “Curtis has been outstanding since he’s been with us.

“He was disappointed to hear the news yesterday but it’s absolutely nothing to do with him at all.

“He’s been a credit to Alan Pardew and Newcastle. He’s going to be a very good player and we’ll enjoy working with him for the rest of his time here.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:13pm Sun 9 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal?

PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late.

As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.
If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal? PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late. As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money. Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

12:39am Mon 10 Dec 12

lonniejockstrap says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal?

PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late.

As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.
The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play?

If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things.

If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal? PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late. As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.[/p][/quote]The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play? If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things. If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

4:39am Mon 10 Dec 12

derrie-t- says...

in 2000 season west ham played an ineligible player in the fa cup, and were ordered to replay the game, dont see why we havent just been given a small fine and just gone ahead with the game but oh well what happened happened cant wait for tuesday!
in 2000 season west ham played an ineligible player in the fa cup, and were ordered to replay the game, dont see why we havent just been given a small fine and just gone ahead with the game but oh well what happened happened cant wait for tuesday! derrie-t-
  • Score: 0

8:04am Mon 10 Dec 12

J4CKO says...

It seems we are appealing the punishment rather than whether we committed the rule breach or not. The appeal simply serves to show the fans what has happened and is therefore window dressing I would have thought. Weve more chance of beating Arsenal than of winning the appeal. Like PP says lets just move on, theres lots to look forward to.
It seems we are appealing the punishment rather than whether we committed the rule breach or not. The appeal simply serves to show the fans what has happened and is therefore window dressing I would have thought. Weve more chance of beating Arsenal than of winning the appeal. Like PP says lets just move on, theres lots to look forward to. J4CKO
  • Score: 0

8:35am Mon 10 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

J4CKO wrote:
It seems we are appealing the punishment rather than whether we committed the rule breach or not. The appeal simply serves to show the fans what has happened and is therefore window dressing I would have thought. Weve more chance of beating Arsenal than of winning the appeal. Like PP says lets just move on, theres lots to look forward to.
Exactly and this is why I don't understand why we don't keep our money in the back pocket.
[quote][p][bold]J4CKO[/bold] wrote: It seems we are appealing the punishment rather than whether we committed the rule breach or not. The appeal simply serves to show the fans what has happened and is therefore window dressing I would have thought. Weve more chance of beating Arsenal than of winning the appeal. Like PP says lets just move on, theres lots to look forward to.[/p][/quote]Exactly and this is why I don't understand why we don't keep our money in the back pocket. Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

8:44am Mon 10 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal?

PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late.

As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.
The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play?

If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things.

If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.
But surely all incidents of this nature are deemed to be "an administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules"?

The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere. Of course the FA are going to challenge us and the precedent has been set. No paperwork equals expulsion.

As PP himself says, take the punishment and move on. The FA aren't going to change their minds because we 'just' made a mistake. That money could be better spent
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal? PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late. As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.[/p][/quote]The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play? If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things. If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.[/p][/quote]But surely all incidents of this nature are deemed to be "an administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules"? The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere. Of course the FA are going to challenge us and the precedent has been set. No paperwork equals expulsion. As PP himself says, take the punishment and move on. The FA aren't going to change their minds because we 'just' made a mistake. That money could be better spent Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

9:01am Mon 10 Dec 12

spleen ventor says...

Having dragged my ar$e down to Northampton for the first round game and then the replay, then fronzen my nuts off against Brentford, I feel cheated at being thrown out and therefore think it's well worth the appeal.
That said, having had my own dealings with the F.A. down the years as a player and secretary in Sunday League football I think we've no chance of being overturned, as someone said, I think we've more chance of beating Arsenal.
Having dragged my ar$e down to Northampton for the first round game and then the replay, then fronzen my nuts off against Brentford, I feel cheated at being thrown out and therefore think it's well worth the appeal. That said, having had my own dealings with the F.A. down the years as a player and secretary in Sunday League football I think we've no chance of being overturned, as someone said, I think we've more chance of beating Arsenal. spleen ventor
  • Score: 0

9:09am Mon 10 Dec 12

tyker2 says...

The punishment has always to fit the crime and there has to be a leelplaying field where the rch have to be treated the same as for the poor. If a premiership team were ordered to play the game again then whu not here?
The punishment has always to fit the crime and there has to be a leelplaying field where the rch have to be treated the same as for the poor. If a premiership team were ordered to play the game again then whu not here? tyker2
  • Score: 0

10:08am Mon 10 Dec 12

lonniejockstrap says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal?

PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late.

As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.
The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play?

If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things.

If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.
But surely all incidents of this nature are deemed to be "an administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules"?

The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere. Of course the FA are going to challenge us and the precedent has been set. No paperwork equals expulsion.

As PP himself says, take the punishment and move on. The FA aren't going to change their minds because we 'just' made a mistake. That money could be better spent
I can't understand why this has to be explained but here goes: If Newcastle had not intended for Good to play the game and City played him that would be an intention by City to break the rules.If City had been given verbal agreement by Pardew that Good could play but they missed that permission off the paperwork, that is an administrative mistake and it was missed down at VP.

You say 'The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere'. That is exactly the point isn't it? it's an admin mistake not an attempt to cheat the rules. So maybe when the FA have all the information and Newcastle confirm that they had no problem with good playing AND the paperwork was sent in on time, then they just might reduce the punishment.

What PP is saying above is not simply 'take the punishment and move on'. What about the quote: “I want our supporters to know it was a very minor administrative error. The main reason I brought in Curtis and Blair (Turgott) was because I wanted to play them in the cups.

“The first question I asked Alan Pardew was ‘I’d like Curtis, but can he play in the FA Cup?’

“He said ‘yes, no problem’. It was just a line that wasn’t on the agreement and with everything going on at the club the administrative staff haven’t picked that up.”

If Brentford also agree that City's intention's were honest and that they have no complaint then-unless there is more to this than we have heard so far- there should be no reason for expulsion as far as I can see.

I don't know how much it costs to appeal but if you know how much money is involved in the appeal but if you do I would appreciate you making it public and we can judge whether it is significant enough to warrant giving up on the opportunity to make our case and the chance of earning tens of thousands of pounds by possibly progressing in the FA Cup.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal? PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late. As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.[/p][/quote]The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play? If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things. If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.[/p][/quote]But surely all incidents of this nature are deemed to be "an administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules"? The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere. Of course the FA are going to challenge us and the precedent has been set. No paperwork equals expulsion. As PP himself says, take the punishment and move on. The FA aren't going to change their minds because we 'just' made a mistake. That money could be better spent[/p][/quote]I can't understand why this has to be explained but here goes: If Newcastle had not intended for Good to play the game and City played him that would be an intention by City to break the rules.If City had been given verbal agreement by Pardew that Good could play but they missed that permission off the paperwork, that is an administrative mistake and it was missed down at VP. You say 'The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere'. That is exactly the point isn't it? it's an admin mistake not an attempt to cheat the rules. So maybe when the FA have all the information and Newcastle confirm that they had no problem with good playing AND the paperwork was sent in on time, then they just might reduce the punishment. What PP is saying above is not simply 'take the punishment and move on'. What about the quote: “I want our supporters to know it was a very minor administrative error. The main reason I brought in Curtis and Blair (Turgott) was because I wanted to play them in the cups. “The first question I asked Alan Pardew was ‘I’d like Curtis, but can he play in the FA Cup?’ “He said ‘yes, no problem’. It was just a line that wasn’t on the agreement and with everything going on at the club the administrative staff haven’t picked that up.” If Brentford also agree that City's intention's were honest and that they have no complaint then-unless there is more to this than we have heard so far- there should be no reason for expulsion as far as I can see. I don't know how much it costs to appeal but if you know how much money is involved in the appeal but if you do I would appreciate you making it public and we can judge whether it is significant enough to warrant giving up on the opportunity to make our case and the chance of earning tens of thousands of pounds by possibly progressing in the FA Cup. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

10:17am Mon 10 Dec 12

tyker2 says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal?

PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late.

As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.
The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play?

If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things.

If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.
But surely all incidents of this nature are deemed to be "an administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules"?

The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere. Of course the FA are going to challenge us and the precedent has been set. No paperwork equals expulsion.

As PP himself says, take the punishment and move on. The FA aren't going to change their minds because we 'just' made a mistake. That money could be better spent
I can't understand why this has to be explained but here goes: If Newcastle had not intended for Good to play the game and City played him that would be an intention by City to break the rules.If City had been given verbal agreement by Pardew that Good could play but they missed that permission off the paperwork, that is an administrative mistake and it was missed down at VP.

You say 'The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere'. That is exactly the point isn't it? it's an admin mistake not an attempt to cheat the rules. So maybe when the FA have all the information and Newcastle confirm that they had no problem with good playing AND the paperwork was sent in on time, then they just might reduce the punishment.

What PP is saying above is not simply 'take the punishment and move on'. What about the quote: “I want our supporters to know it was a very minor administrative error. The main reason I brought in Curtis and Blair (Turgott) was because I wanted to play them in the cups.

“The first question I asked Alan Pardew was ‘I’d like Curtis, but can he play in the FA Cup?’

“He said ‘yes, no problem’. It was just a line that wasn’t on the agreement and with everything going on at the club the administrative staff haven’t picked that up.”

If Brentford also agree that City's intention's were honest and that they have no complaint then-unless there is more to this than we have heard so far- there should be no reason for expulsion as far as I can see.

I don't know how much it costs to appeal but if you know how much money is involved in the appeal but if you do I would appreciate you making it public and we can judge whether it is significant enough to warrant giving up on the opportunity to make our case and the chance of earning tens of thousands of pounds by possibly progressing in the FA Cup.
good post and I agree completely
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal? PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late. As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.[/p][/quote]The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play? If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things. If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.[/p][/quote]But surely all incidents of this nature are deemed to be "an administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules"? The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere. Of course the FA are going to challenge us and the precedent has been set. No paperwork equals expulsion. As PP himself says, take the punishment and move on. The FA aren't going to change their minds because we 'just' made a mistake. That money could be better spent[/p][/quote]I can't understand why this has to be explained but here goes: If Newcastle had not intended for Good to play the game and City played him that would be an intention by City to break the rules.If City had been given verbal agreement by Pardew that Good could play but they missed that permission off the paperwork, that is an administrative mistake and it was missed down at VP. You say 'The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere'. That is exactly the point isn't it? it's an admin mistake not an attempt to cheat the rules. So maybe when the FA have all the information and Newcastle confirm that they had no problem with good playing AND the paperwork was sent in on time, then they just might reduce the punishment. What PP is saying above is not simply 'take the punishment and move on'. What about the quote: “I want our supporters to know it was a very minor administrative error. The main reason I brought in Curtis and Blair (Turgott) was because I wanted to play them in the cups. “The first question I asked Alan Pardew was ‘I’d like Curtis, but can he play in the FA Cup?’ “He said ‘yes, no problem’. It was just a line that wasn’t on the agreement and with everything going on at the club the administrative staff haven’t picked that up.” If Brentford also agree that City's intention's were honest and that they have no complaint then-unless there is more to this than we have heard so far- there should be no reason for expulsion as far as I can see. I don't know how much it costs to appeal but if you know how much money is involved in the appeal but if you do I would appreciate you making it public and we can judge whether it is significant enough to warrant giving up on the opportunity to make our case and the chance of earning tens of thousands of pounds by possibly progressing in the FA Cup.[/p][/quote]good post and I agree completely tyker2
  • Score: 0

11:48am Mon 10 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

spleen ventor wrote:
Having dragged my ar$e down to Northampton for the first round game and then the replay, then fronzen my nuts off against Brentford, I feel cheated at being thrown out and therefore think it's well worth the appeal. That said, having had my own dealings with the F.A. down the years as a player and secretary in Sunday League football I think we've no chance of being overturned, as someone said, I think we've more chance of beating Arsenal.
We could go down to Lancaster Gate to ask for leniency, just because some of our supporters froze their nads off watching the first & second round ties...!

We broke the rules, accidentally or not, and there is NO POINT in appealing. You have admitted as much, as has PP himself. We haven't got the money to be throwing it around on pointless appeals..!
[quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: Having dragged my ar$e down to Northampton for the first round game and then the replay, then fronzen my nuts off against Brentford, I feel cheated at being thrown out and therefore think it's well worth the appeal. That said, having had my own dealings with the F.A. down the years as a player and secretary in Sunday League football I think we've no chance of being overturned, as someone said, I think we've more chance of beating Arsenal.[/p][/quote]We could go down to Lancaster Gate to ask for leniency, just because some of our supporters froze their nads off watching the first & second round ties...! We broke the rules, accidentally or not, and there is NO POINT in appealing. You have admitted as much, as has PP himself. We haven't got the money to be throwing it around on pointless appeals..! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

11:50am Mon 10 Dec 12

tyker2 says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
Having dragged my ar$e down to Northampton for the first round game and then the replay, then fronzen my nuts off against Brentford, I feel cheated at being thrown out and therefore think it's well worth the appeal. That said, having had my own dealings with the F.A. down the years as a player and secretary in Sunday League football I think we've no chance of being overturned, as someone said, I think we've more chance of beating Arsenal.
We could go down to Lancaster Gate to ask for leniency, just because some of our supporters froze their nads off watching the first & second round ties...!

We broke the rules, accidentally or not, and there is NO POINT in appealing. You have admitted as much, as has PP himself. We haven't got the money to be throwing it around on pointless appeals..!
maybe using some of t' Arsenal money?
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: Having dragged my ar$e down to Northampton for the first round game and then the replay, then fronzen my nuts off against Brentford, I feel cheated at being thrown out and therefore think it's well worth the appeal. That said, having had my own dealings with the F.A. down the years as a player and secretary in Sunday League football I think we've no chance of being overturned, as someone said, I think we've more chance of beating Arsenal.[/p][/quote]We could go down to Lancaster Gate to ask for leniency, just because some of our supporters froze their nads off watching the first & second round ties...! We broke the rules, accidentally or not, and there is NO POINT in appealing. You have admitted as much, as has PP himself. We haven't got the money to be throwing it around on pointless appeals..![/p][/quote]maybe using some of t' Arsenal money? tyker2
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote: If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal? PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late. As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.
The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play? If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things. If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.
But surely all incidents of this nature are deemed to be "an administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules"? The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere. Of course the FA are going to challenge us and the precedent has been set. No paperwork equals expulsion. As PP himself says, take the punishment and move on. The FA aren't going to change their minds because we 'just' made a mistake. That money could be better spent
I can't understand why this has to be explained but here goes: If Newcastle had not intended for Good to play the game and City played him that would be an intention by City to break the rules.If City had been given verbal agreement by Pardew that Good could play but they missed that permission off the paperwork, that is an administrative mistake and it was missed down at VP. You say 'The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere'. That is exactly the point isn't it? it's an admin mistake not an attempt to cheat the rules. So maybe when the FA have all the information and Newcastle confirm that they had no problem with good playing AND the paperwork was sent in on time, then they just might reduce the punishment. What PP is saying above is not simply 'take the punishment and move on'. What about the quote: “I want our supporters to know it was a very minor administrative error. The main reason I brought in Curtis and Blair (Turgott) was because I wanted to play them in the cups. “The first question I asked Alan Pardew was ‘I’d like Curtis, but can he play in the FA Cup?’ “He said ‘yes, no problem’. It was just a line that wasn’t on the agreement and with everything going on at the club the administrative staff haven’t picked that up.” If Brentford also agree that City's intention's were honest and that they have no complaint then-unless there is more to this than we have heard so far- there should be no reason for expulsion as far as I can see. I don't know how much it costs to appeal but if you know how much money is involved in the appeal but if you do I would appreciate you making it public and we can judge whether it is significant enough to warrant giving up on the opportunity to make our case and the chance of earning tens of thousands of pounds by possibly progressing in the FA Cup.
I will answer the easier question first. I do not know for a fact, what the appeal costs. However, on Friday evening, the Bradford City reporter for Radio Leeds claimed it was between £10-£15k. Not an insignificant amount of money.

You can play the smart-ar5e as much as you like Lonnie, with your "I can't understand why this has to be explained but here goes...." comment. The fact still stands that we did not present the required paperwork to the FA.

Bury had a player on loan and believed they had permision to play that player in the cup. This had never been added to the loan contract. The player was a regular in the league and so was selected for the cup. Even though they eventually appealed on the basis that verbal agreement had been reached with the parent club at the time, the FA insisted there was no written proof of this 'agreement'. This is NO different to us now.

Yes, it is a simple administrative error and not a club trying to gain an advantage, but surely all these incidents (didn't Droylesden have a similar issue too) are the same. I'm sure Bury & Droylesden argued that they also believed the correct paperwork had been completed?

If you have heard PP's interview, rather than just reading the words, you will know that he IS resigned to losing this appeal. If he isn't confident the FA will overturn, I'm sure the FA themselves, won't think twice.

Just save the appeal money, give the lads their Xmas do and a do off and let's push on for promotion
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: If is is an administrative error and one that is significant enough in the eyes of the FA to warrant expulsion, why waste money on an appeal? PP has confirmed written agreement that Good could play was omitted from the paperwork. As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play. Now we may be trying to get evidence from Pardew that he had given permission, but surely that is too late. As such, I do not understand why we are wasting money on an appeal, when we already "know" what the outcome will be...! Just save the money.[/p][/quote]The action to expel us from the FA Cup will be an automatic decision based on the administrative evidence alone I would have thought. The FA have stated that City have the option to use the appeal process and,if as you suggest that: 'As far as the FA are concerned, therefore, Good hadn't been given clearance that he could play' is the sole reason for our expulsion, then what if all parties do reach agreement that the player WAS allowed to play? If as seems to be the case that the paperwork went in on time but was mistakenly missing the agreed sentence that said he was allowed to play by Newcastle then the FA may decide on a lesser punishment than expulsion. An administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules are very different things. If City don't appeal then there will be no chance at all of having the full details surrounding the error being considered. The appeal is well justified in my opinion.[/p][/quote]But surely all incidents of this nature are deemed to be "an administrative mistake as opposed to an intention to break the rules"? The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere. Of course the FA are going to challenge us and the precedent has been set. No paperwork equals expulsion. As PP himself says, take the punishment and move on. The FA aren't going to change their minds because we 'just' made a mistake. That money could be better spent[/p][/quote]I can't understand why this has to be explained but here goes: If Newcastle had not intended for Good to play the game and City played him that would be an intention by City to break the rules.If City had been given verbal agreement by Pardew that Good could play but they missed that permission off the paperwork, that is an administrative mistake and it was missed down at VP. You say 'The fact remains that we got permission off Newcastle but this isn't evidenced anywhere'. That is exactly the point isn't it? it's an admin mistake not an attempt to cheat the rules. So maybe when the FA have all the information and Newcastle confirm that they had no problem with good playing AND the paperwork was sent in on time, then they just might reduce the punishment. What PP is saying above is not simply 'take the punishment and move on'. What about the quote: “I want our supporters to know it was a very minor administrative error. The main reason I brought in Curtis and Blair (Turgott) was because I wanted to play them in the cups. “The first question I asked Alan Pardew was ‘I’d like Curtis, but can he play in the FA Cup?’ “He said ‘yes, no problem’. It was just a line that wasn’t on the agreement and with everything going on at the club the administrative staff haven’t picked that up.” If Brentford also agree that City's intention's were honest and that they have no complaint then-unless there is more to this than we have heard so far- there should be no reason for expulsion as far as I can see. I don't know how much it costs to appeal but if you know how much money is involved in the appeal but if you do I would appreciate you making it public and we can judge whether it is significant enough to warrant giving up on the opportunity to make our case and the chance of earning tens of thousands of pounds by possibly progressing in the FA Cup.[/p][/quote]I will answer the easier question first. I do not know for a fact, what the appeal costs. However, on Friday evening, the Bradford City reporter for Radio Leeds claimed it was between £10-£15k. Not an insignificant amount of money. You can play the smart-ar5e as much as you like Lonnie, with your "I can't understand why this has to be explained but here goes...." comment. The fact still stands that we did not present the required paperwork to the FA. Bury had a player on loan and believed they had permision to play that player in the cup. This had never been added to the loan contract. The player was a regular in the league and so was selected for the cup. Even though they eventually appealed on the basis that verbal agreement had been reached with the parent club at the time, the FA insisted there was no written proof of this 'agreement'. This is NO different to us now. Yes, it is a simple administrative error and not a club trying to gain an advantage, but surely all these incidents (didn't Droylesden have a similar issue too) are the same. I'm sure Bury & Droylesden argued that they also believed the correct paperwork had been completed? If you have heard PP's interview, rather than just reading the words, you will know that he IS resigned to losing this appeal. If he isn't confident the FA will overturn, I'm sure the FA themselves, won't think twice. Just save the appeal money, give the lads their Xmas do and a do off and let's push on for promotion Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

tyker2 wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
spleen ventor wrote: Having dragged my ar$e down to Northampton for the first round game and then the replay, then fronzen my nuts off against Brentford, I feel cheated at being thrown out and therefore think it's well worth the appeal. That said, having had my own dealings with the F.A. down the years as a player and secretary in Sunday League football I think we've no chance of being overturned, as someone said, I think we've more chance of beating Arsenal.
We could go down to Lancaster Gate to ask for leniency, just because some of our supporters froze their nads off watching the first & second round ties...! We broke the rules, accidentally or not, and there is NO POINT in appealing. You have admitted as much, as has PP himself. We haven't got the money to be throwing it around on pointless appeals..!
maybe using some of t' Arsenal money?
According to Lawn, Baldwin & Rhodes, that money is being used to offset the over-spend this season, instead of having to sell our better players.

Surely the fact is, the agreement between City & Newcastle wasn't documented anywhere. Newcastle may be prepared to back us and confirm their agreement, but would the FA accept this. Stable door - horse - bolted?

Quote from the BBC at the time of Bury's appeal, "Turnbull is on loan from Hartlepool but Bury did not get the official go-ahead for him to play in the FA Cup.

Hartlepool manager Danny Wilson had given Caspar verbal permission for Turnbull to play but the paperwork was never sent to Bury".
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: Having dragged my ar$e down to Northampton for the first round game and then the replay, then fronzen my nuts off against Brentford, I feel cheated at being thrown out and therefore think it's well worth the appeal. That said, having had my own dealings with the F.A. down the years as a player and secretary in Sunday League football I think we've no chance of being overturned, as someone said, I think we've more chance of beating Arsenal.[/p][/quote]We could go down to Lancaster Gate to ask for leniency, just because some of our supporters froze their nads off watching the first & second round ties...! We broke the rules, accidentally or not, and there is NO POINT in appealing. You have admitted as much, as has PP himself. We haven't got the money to be throwing it around on pointless appeals..![/p][/quote]maybe using some of t' Arsenal money?[/p][/quote]According to Lawn, Baldwin & Rhodes, that money is being used to offset the over-spend this season, instead of having to sell our better players. Surely the fact is, the agreement between City & Newcastle wasn't documented anywhere. Newcastle may be prepared to back us and confirm their agreement, but would the FA accept this. Stable door - horse - bolted? Quote from the BBC at the time of Bury's appeal, "Turnbull is on loan from Hartlepool but Bury did not get the official go-ahead for him to play in the FA Cup. Hartlepool manager Danny Wilson had given Caspar verbal permission for Turnbull to play but the paperwork was never sent to Bury". Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Mon 10 Dec 12

BigFigure says...

derrie-t- wrote:
in 2000 season west ham played an ineligible player in the fa cup, and were ordered to replay the game, dont see why we havent just been given a small fine and just gone ahead with the game but oh well what happened happened cant wait for tuesday!
West Ham played an ineligible guy in the League Cup, not the FA Cup....so a different governing body was involved. The FA, on the other hand, does seem to always take a tough stance in cases like this, so expect the worst.
[quote][p][bold]derrie-t-[/bold] wrote: in 2000 season west ham played an ineligible player in the fa cup, and were ordered to replay the game, dont see why we havent just been given a small fine and just gone ahead with the game but oh well what happened happened cant wait for tuesday![/p][/quote]West Ham played an ineligible guy in the League Cup, not the FA Cup....so a different governing body was involved. The FA, on the other hand, does seem to always take a tough stance in cases like this, so expect the worst. BigFigure
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Mon 10 Dec 12

lonniejockstrap says...

Waynus, if the appeal costs between 10k-15k then I would agree that the appeal should be more or less nailed on to succeed before making the appeal. However, I just can't believe it is anywhere near that figure. Anybody out there who can confirm this?
Waynus, if the appeal costs between 10k-15k then I would agree that the appeal should be more or less nailed on to succeed before making the appeal. However, I just can't believe it is anywhere near that figure. Anybody out there who can confirm this? lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Waynus1971 says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Waynus, if the appeal costs between 10k-15k then I would agree that the appeal should be more or less nailed on to succeed before making the appeal. However, I just can't believe it is anywhere near that figure. Anybody out there who can confirm this?
As I say, I don't know if true, but it was on the Radio around 17:35 on Friday evening. I think the fella's name is Dave Callaghan or something like that.

He was saying we must be fairly confident of winning the appeal, because the cost of the appeal, believed to be between £10 and £15k is a lot of money to a club like Bradford.

And I totally agree, especially when the chances of the expulsion being overturned must be around 5% max
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: Waynus, if the appeal costs between 10k-15k then I would agree that the appeal should be more or less nailed on to succeed before making the appeal. However, I just can't believe it is anywhere near that figure. Anybody out there who can confirm this?[/p][/quote]As I say, I don't know if true, but it was on the Radio around 17:35 on Friday evening. I think the fella's name is Dave Callaghan or something like that. He was saying we must be fairly confident of winning the appeal, because the cost of the appeal, believed to be between £10 and £15k is a lot of money to a club like Bradford. And I totally agree, especially when the chances of the expulsion being overturned must be around 5% max Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
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