if certain people are still at this football club next season and Pools are in L2, then exactly how many people do they think will turn up on a Saturday?
I won't be one of them

Jeff Stelling was far too embarrased to comment but Des said a few words instead

http://www.wedigtv.com/conundrum/?id=154569

Don't disagree that we have to look at our procedures and sort out why we didn't take the required action. The only point I make is was there some action that the FA should have taken in notifying us - if so did they fulfil their obligation. If they didn't then they have to shoulder some responsibility. Have the systems at the FA been modified to be idiot proof - the evidence suggests they haven't.

Furthermore the FA systems can't be too hot if they hadn't noticed we had breached the rules until we told them on Friday.

and let's face it ... Pools is ran by idiots!!!!

Putting all frustration aside, the way Pools appear to be run at the moment is shambolic. I was under the impression that IOR were a professional and successful company. If thats the case WTF are they doing at Pools. Everything from ticketing to general information to the Billingham Town debacle to management of the team and the silly selection policy. We have employees who can't be bothered to do what they are handsomely paid for. We have a selection policy based primarily on favoritism and grudge bearing. Now we discover that they don't appear to bother making a note of when someone is suspended.

FFS bring in George Reynolds to improve the running of the place.

I'm completely fed up with pools. since 1988 I have never felt as close to moving on and finding another 'interest'. ive lost my passion for the club and if they folded tommorrow I wouldn't be that bothered. sad but true.

Im not sure

Absolutely right, PJ. This is the first that I've heard of this, but if the Club finds out who is reponsible for not keeping a full comprehensive record of yellow cards etc and we have points deducted that relegate us, whoever was responsible should be held accountable, in my opinion.

Yeah, that's right and I think that's what helped cost them the League last season as well.

In my opinion, there should have been a root-and-branch enquiry at Oxford to find whoever was responsible for the error, but there was no enquiry.

Yeah, the same FA who punish clubs further who appeal by calling their appeal "frivolous".

Spot on, that man. Can't avoid concluding that the explanation lies either in parmo's conspiracy theory or else in some sort of collective mental incapacity at the Club.

interesting comments from turner re: possible points deduction in the journal.

Basically says that he has been told that the FA are sympathetic with the reasons behind why it happened.

So....... A guaranteed 3 point deduction then

It is certainly going to add drama to the end of the season.
We have until April 26th to respond to the charges. Then the authorities have to arrange a meeting to decide whether we should be punished and what that punishment should be. The season could be over before we get the result.
Then the brown stuff could really hit the fan.
Are we allowed to appeal?????????????

Weren't West Ham fined for playing Tevez when Technically he wasn't their player????????/ No points deduction for them.
Didn't Sheff Utd take the case to court demanding that West Ham be relegated instead of them...............and lost.

In our favour we have.

We pointed the case out to the authorities, they had obviously missed it. So they are technically guilty of the same offence?????
The FA/FL site not up to date, due to the Bank Holiday, and confusing to say the least.
No contact from the authorities confirming the ban, well not until we pointed it out to them.
Why didn't the referee at the Brighton game pick it up when he received the team sheet. Surely the authorities had informed him of any registered players that were banned. Or, because of the bank holiday, had he not received any notice. Or, because of an oversight by the authorities and until Pools owned up to it, he was never going to know.
As far as I am aware, the authorities confirm in writing when a player is banned, or has that been scrapped???????

Against us we have.

The authorities taking account of our mitigation and then ignoring it.
We have no clout.
We should be professional enough to know the rules backwards and apply them.

Can anybody add anything to my desperate straw clutching?????????

I know this is all a joke, but if the FA didnt inform us in writing why the hell did Pools tell the FA. Surely the point is with the governing bodies to inform Pools and not the team in question, ie do you ring up the police to tell them you were speeding in your car.

I know its not correct or moral to do so but like the old saying goes "what they dont know cant hurt them".

I think this has all come about from people being on holiday from the FA over easter, the ref would have filled the forms in for Liddle to be cautioned and added another onto his record (so the FA would have know and then informed Pools at a later date), Pools could have then argued that they wernt informed and that didnt know.

Totally agree John, but lets be honest players arn't the cleverest of people and probably just know "I must be close to getting a ban, but the gaffer will tell me when I can play". Thats what I would do personally myself, play until someone tells you otherwise.

This then passes the "buck" onto Pools and not Liddle himself, if Pools havent been informed by the FA or their database is incorrect (like you say missing the Norwich or the Orient cautions), this then points to the FA.

To be honest we all know Pools are in the wrong but I think Pools have a good case to argue. John have you sent this information to the club?

I get the impression that the club only realised the situation when it was raised on here. I hope they will read the various threads on here for clues as to how to argue their case.

That is the perfect answer then.
If the football league have only eight bookings recorded, then all we have to say is....before every game we double check with the official football league site to check on suspensions etc, which we did on this occasion. We noticed that eight booking were recorded against Gary Liddle and added the Orient booking, making nine. Therefore Liddle was eligible based on official records. It was only when we received the confirmation letter, saying that he was banned, the day AFTER the Brighton game that we realised there was a discrepancy in the official records. At that point we contacted the authorities telling them that a mistake had been made. Whilst we are not dismissing our responsibilities out of hand, we feel that this is sufficient mitigation to prove that we do take these rules seriously and we do have these checks in place to prevent us falling foul of the rules. Unfortunately we put our complete trust in the football league site. Not for one minute did we contemplate breaking the rules, and there was no intent to do so. This is the first time we have fallen foul this particular rule and we feel that, given the circumstances, a punishment would be harsh.

Worth a try and definitely not frivolous.

Its also necessary to look at the records and databases as they recorded the facts at 15:00 hours on Monday when we played - not necessarily as they stand now.

Picture on mail website showing ref booking Liddle

We can look at this from every conceivable angle, but at the end of the day, Gary Liddle, Pools and someone somewhere in an office on Clarence Road have all potentially cost us our place in League one.
Now we all know that players want to play and despite having loads of money and big cars aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas Tree, Pools are currently run/managed by clowns (sorry). So for me the blame lies firmly at the feet of some employee whos job it is to look after the admin of the club. They need to be held accountable and named, it is a fook up of epic proportions and if it remains hidden we are once again being laughed at as supporters

Agree.

But we have to use every conceivable argument we can which just might reduce our punishment.

We have to make the authorities think before issuing judgement.

It may all be fruitless but we don't just give up, surely??????????????

'We can't give up' - who are you referrring to, the club gave up months ago when they didnt see we had a manager that couldn't keep us in the league, we are now resorting to this to keep us in the league. Its a fooking joke, a fookin joke I tell you !!!!

yeah we were clearly going to get relegated before this incident werent we? Your just as much a wind up merchant as your mate Oba!

I am not winding anyone up, are you suggesting we weren't going to get relegated, it was not an option. Good god man, I wish I had your optomism

Well I'm obviously not referring to you.

we realistically only need 4 points to be safe, 3 will probably do. If it werent for this potential deduction then a win tomorrow would prob have seen us safe. So yeah, i was very confident we would stay up.

Turner's comments and interview on the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/hartlepool_united/8614025.stm

OK, so the big question was:

If Turner didn't possibly know until the Tuesday that Liddle was inelligible, who did know that?

Who is responsible, according to the FA, at a Club and the FA as well to keep a track of disciplinary records?

I think the referee should know, someone at the FA and certainly someone at the Club.

Turner is now saying that he honestly did not know.

"The bottom line is, what manager or coach in the world would select a player to play in a team, if he knew he wasn't allowed to play? That's less than Sunday league stuff"

To go with the rest of the Sunday League stuff we have endured this season Chris !!!!

I see Gus Poyet is talking bollocks as well now:

"It was not a case of cheating, but they made a mistake and that player should not have been on the pitch so the three points should go to the opposition.

"They cannot just deduct the points from Hartlepool. For the sake of fair competition we should be awarded them. All teams play 46 games in a season so it would be unfair if we only played 45 matches."

Somehow I cant see the FA or League accepting ignorance as a good enough reason for letting you off with just a fine. If anything they may take a sterner view as a way of making Pools take more care in future. I know from my dealings with Durham FA that they dont give a toss about evidence put in front of them.

Some views from the BBC 606 site...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A66349137

There is the fact that the letter didn't arrive at the club until the day after the game The letter is significant because why send it if it isn't significant.
As soon as the letter was received the club made an immediate move to own up.
It's not a matter of ignorance alone. The authorities have shown ignorance as well. The football league was, according to their site, ignorant of the fact that Liddle was on nine cards before the Orient game and not the eight they had recorded. The authorities also could have faxed/ e mailed the club with the ban, instead of relying on the postal service over a bank holiday weekend.
I also think the timespan of waiting until virtually the last game of the season before pronouncing sentence is not on.
That decision affects the teams around us as well as us. We could be safe by two points and biting our fingernails and so could another club.
Pools are not lilywhite in this but neither are the authorities.
Lets just put it down to experience.................please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

would the FA not have had the final say over the Grays deduction?

Also with Gus Poyets comment of them being awarded the 3 points if we get them deducted, whose to say they would have won the game any way. They may still have lost even if Liddle wasn't playing.

I cant believe that a "Professional" Footballer did not know he was near or on the cusp of a ban, f.f.s it's his job, and a one he is well paid for. It's like asking a worker (or one of us if you work) how many verbal/written warnings you've had from your employer, I'm sure you'd know if your job was on the line, never mind something as nevertheless crucial as an impending ban.

If you asked your supervisor how many lieu days you'd taken this calendar year, and they said 5, but you argued only 4 it'd be more likely you'd know yerself............... Pampered fekkers.

Maybe we have an answer to our question then.

The FA site shows Liddle has to miss 2 games until the club has played two games from 3/4/10. We have played two games Brighton and Wycombe). If the FA have said he has to miss the Wycombe and Stockport games then they have already effectively sanctioned the deferral of his ban. In any of the 'precedents' where clubs were deducted points were any of the bans similarly deferred? Still trying to clutch at straws.

Since whed did the FA start giving a date like this? And how come the 5 other teams who had players recieve their tenth yellow card on the day of the Orient game, made their players miss games on date of Brighton game??

That's the way its written

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/SuspensionLists