SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
Sheppey United (who are they?) beating Walsall 1-0. Game on ITV4
Solihull with a big game away at Bolton tomorrow
Solihull with a big game away at Bolton tomorrow
Horsham (seventh tier) beating Barnsley at Oakwell. We’ll be in the for the rest of their squad in January
Sheppey United (who are they?) beating Walsall 1-0. Game on ITV4
Solihull with a big game away at Bolton tomorrow
South London derby thatToday we have Cray Valley Paper Mills at Charlton
They’ve just equalised, well the Charlton player didToday we have Cray Valley Paper Mills at Charlton
You'd expect them to keep a clean sheetThey’ve just equalised, well the Charlton player did
And they're a Yorkshire team - They'll feel that pain double maybe triple in the pocket. Bloody ouch!Not only are they thrown out but will lose the money for progressing to round 2 which this season is £41,000. Horsham will love that money.All because they played one of their players recalled from York before the replay.Costly mistake?
Villa may well be side tracked with the possibility of a Lg finish good enough for CL football - That will undoubtedly mean fielding a weak side in the 2 or 3 rds they will be in.I think Spurs or Villa would be a good shout for the cup this year
One didn’t ask permission from the parent club but the player was otherwise eligible. The other was the parent club but fielded someone ineligible to play.Barnsley were kicked out for playing for playing a player in thier replay who was not registered to play in the first game.(rule 103)Forest Green played a player on loan without written permission from his club.( rule 109) They are not being kicked out but will replay their game.Both teams broke the rules but 1 replays the game (with the extra cash that brings) the other is chucked out.The crime seems much the same to me
Both players were ineligible Barnsley because they fielded a player recalled in the replay whom was not registered to play in the first game(rule103).The Forest Green player played without written permission from the parent club(rule 109.1). That is my understanding in both statements from the FA it states both player were ineligible so therefore both should be expelledOne didn’t ask permission from the parent club but the player was otherwise eligible. The other was the parent club but fielded someone ineligible to play.
The Forest Green player was eligible (given permission by the parent club) but they didn’t inform the FA.Both players were ineligible Barnsley because they fielded a player recalled in the replay whom was not registered to play in the first game(rule103).The Forest Green player played without written permission from the parent club(rule 109.1). That is my understanding in both statements from the FA it states both player were ineligible so therefore both should be expelled
The version I read was wriiten permission was not given to the FA didn't say by whom.Thanks.The Forest Green player was eligible (given permission by the parent club) but they didn’t inform the FA.
I read that it's more to do with policing than anything else, although I'm sure TV companies weren't complaining.Why is the first game of the third round now on a Thursday
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
BBC obsessed with showing two premier league teams as if people are desperate to see itTottenham game another thriller for the cameras
I had hoped that these teams would want to avoid a replay enough to be a bit adventurous.BBC obsessed with showing two premier league teams as if people are desperate to see it
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
There's not many standout ties but thought Gillingham Vs Sheff Utd and Stoke Vs Brighton were in for a shout as potential cupsetsTottenham game another thriller for the cameras
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?