Hereford fan's bitterness has no bounds

Redraine · 05-05-2007, 23:47

From the Hereford forum:-

They did not deduct them because of WEST HAM. Surely now that this is being challenged in court the teams at the bottom of League 2 should mount a legal challenge againts ACCY for breaching the league rules for the second season in a row - and getting away with it for the second time in a row.

I think we can all see now that football is VERY corrupt when it comes to these sorts of things.

In fact Brighton were allowed to stay in the League without a ground at the expense of a club WITH a ground. I wonder who that was........
SHOCKING !

Sense of proportion missing, big time!

[ post follow-up ]

Redash · 06-05-2007, 07:54

West Ham deliberatly misled the FA, and hid paperwork. We forgot to put dots over the i's. it's totaly different.

melonhigh · 06-05-2007, 13:11

And even if we had have had four points deducted (as was predicted) we'd still have stayed up on goal difference.

Haggis316 · 06-05-2007, 14:04

With no more than 7 points at stake who would bother to fund the legal action? Boston United who finished 14 points behind us because they have gone into administration and could not keep on top of their player's wages let alone fund a pointless legal action or Torquay United who finished 15 points behind us?

Wouldn't help their position one iota. The other teams survived any way. Haven't they anything better to spend what money they have on?

Redraine · 06-05-2007, 22:17

Bull******rs still having a go!:-

"Lets hope the LEAGUE looks again at the Points Deduction.
If they now deduct from West Ham or it goes to court I can see the Accy case having to go too - although with Boston losing 10 points it becomes irrelevent.
Next season they will go down - get your money on it - they have to stay within the WAGE CAP of 60% of attendance at home and their attendance is so small that surely they will not survive - Macclesfield likewise."

Bagpuss · 07-05-2007, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redraine

they have to stay within the WAGE CAP of 60% of attendance at home and their attendance is so small that surely they will not survive - Macclesfield likewise."

Don't know much on this point but it could lead to some interesting crowd figures for next season. It has been said that the attendences given where lower than the real attendence figure, maybe next season we will be discussing why Eric said 4000 when it was obvious there where only 3000.

maccawozzagod · 07-05-2007, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

Don't know much on this point but it could lead to some interesting crowd figures for next season. It has been said that the attendences given where lower than the real attendence figure, maybe next season we will be discussing why Eric said 4000 when it was obvious there where only 3000.

I thought the same Bagpuss, but I thought it better left to you!!

bullmac · 08-05-2007, 03:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redraine

From the Hereford forum:-

They did not deduct them because of WEST HAM. Surely now that this is being challenged in court the teams at the bottom of League 2 should mount a legal challenge againts ACCY for breaching the league rules for the second season in a row - and getting away with it for the second time in a row.

I think we can all see now that football is VERY corrupt when it comes to these sorts of things.

In fact Brighton were allowed to stay in the League without a ground at the expense of a club WITH a ground. I wonder who that was........
SHOCKING !

Sense of proportion missing, big time!

[ post follow-up ]

2 posts from our resident idiot which hardly got a reply.
In fact I only saw this myself when I came on this forum to say:-

'Congrats on your relegation escape & good luck next season.'

Isn't it time to grow up & leave the past where it is?

Chimer · 08-05-2007, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullmac

2 posts from our resident idiot which hardly got a reply.
In fact I only saw this myself when I came on this forum to say:-

'Congrats on your relegation escape & good luck next season.'

Isn't it time to grow up & leave the past where it is?

Well said Bullmac and thanks for your kind thoughts ....

On the day when Ian Paisley sat down with Martin McGuinness I would like to think we (Stanley and Bulls) could have a season with no references to Welshness or sheep, whippets or pub football pitches - but we both know our respective resident idiots (sorry, comic geniuses) won't let that happen.

See you next season

Haggis316 · 14-05-2007, 19:23

Any legal challenge to the league panel decision on Stanley would not have stood a snow ball's anyway. See:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle1774779.ece

JEFF · 15-05-2007, 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redraine

Next season they will go down - get your money on it - they have to stay within the WAGE CAP of 60% of attendance at home and their attendance is so small that surely they will not survive - Macclesfield likewise."

I think that you will find that the WAGE CAP is 60% of previous year's turnover. Turnover includes all income, including transfer fees. Our turnover for last season was well up on the season before thanks to transfer fees of £250,000 for Gary Roberts and £75,000 for Ian Craney. The WAGE CAP is not solely a percentage of attendance at home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_League_Two