Danny Wilson should have been suspended v ICT?

[GGTTH07]

He was sent off when he was at rangers in the league cup final 2010 v st mirren. Surely that means he couldn't play yesterday? Unless it was in the league... :confused:

[Gmack7]

was it a straight red?

[NotoriousLor]

Who cares?

[Col2]

He didn't miss Huns next game and didn't miss Liverpools league cup, something fishy here? Wondered if Sevco status meant re-right of rules for existing suspension.

Even if yams ha not been notified you have to wonder how ICT will feel about it if some rules have been breached.

[scoopyboy]

Who cares?

Me, they would get pumped out the cup.

[GGTTH07]

was it a straight red?
Yes.

[Col2]

was it a straight red?

Yes. But didn't miss league game as not for violent contact.

[danhibees1875]

Who cares?

As unlikely as it all is, it'd be pretty funny. :greengrin

EDIT: It was a straight red, courtesy of C. Thomson.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_cups/8576203.stm

[scoopyboy]

He didn't miss Huns next game and didn't miss Liverpools league cup, something fishy here? Wondered if Sevco status meant re-right of rules for existing suspension.

Even if yams ha not been notified you have to wonder how ICT will feel about it if some rules have been breached.

If it was two yellows that got him sent off then his suspension would be valid for the game yesterday, irrespective of Sevco.

It is the player that gets the suspension not the club.

[Col2]

Who cares?

A few people on here and possibly ICT and they could be sitting in a cup final if rules breached. At worse a replay would be on cards.

[NotoriousLor]

We need to be concentrating on our own game, aye it would be funny but can't see anything happening to them as per

[hibeedonald]

He was sent off when he was at rangers in the league cup final 2010 v st mirren. Surely that means he couldn't play yesterday? Unless it was in the league... :confused:

Imagine if Hearts got ****ed out the cup for this post. Would be so funny. Rules are rules though someone should definitely check.

[truehibernian]

Don't think he was ineligible - it was a straight red, so the next league games would have carried the suspension.

If Saints play like they did today they'll beat Hearts - I thought for much of the game today Saints were excellent and played very brave football. Well done wee Danny Lennon - he'll be as passionate about beating Hearts as we are :agree:

As for Billy McKay.........that will haunt the rest of your career son, a right 'and Smith must score' momento :rolleyes:

[Saorsa]

Don't think he was ineligible - it was a straight red, so the next league games would have carried the suspension.

If Saints play like they did today they'll beat Hearts - I thought for much of the game today Saints were excellent and played very brave football. Well done wee Danny Lennon - he'll be as passionate about beating Hearts as we are :agree:

As for Billy McKay.........that will haunt the rest of your career son, a right 'and Smith must score' momento :rolleyes:Depends what the straight red was for does it not? As I understand it, if it was for violent conduct he would miss the next game irrespective of the competition, if it was just a red card it should carry tae the next game in the same competition.

[Billy Whizz]

Depends what the straight red was for does it not? As I understand it, if it was for violent conduct he would miss the next game irrespective of the competition, if it was just a red card it should carry tae the next game in the same competition.

It' was for a professional foul seemingly

[Spike Mandela]

Wilson played in the next league match and scored against.........HEARTS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8588247.stm

And the midweek Scottish cup tie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_cups/8583381.stm

[graemegyle]

Depends what the straight red was for does it not? As I understand it, if it was for violent conduct he would miss the next game irrespective of the competition, if it was just a red card it should carry tae the next game in the same competition.

He scored the first goal for Rangers against Hearts at tynie in a 4-1 win the Saturday after the cup final.

[BroxburnHibee]

Is there someone we could ask for clarification :greengrin

[hibs0666]

Wilson played in the next league match and scored against.........HEARTS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8588247.stm

He also played for Hearts in a Scottish cup tie a few days after the sending off but prior to the league match.

Who's dropping a note to Mr. Lunny then? :wink:

[Col2]

Ewan Murray Jambo journalist has tweeted saying Hearts checked it out before yesterday and no ban on transfer certificate. Rule in England are that ban can be taken for a non specific tournament eg league game.

Still doesn't make sense as he played next league game for Huns so surely this null and voids the non specific tournament rule.

Something stinks here. No doubt yams checked it out but if you were ICT you would be asking questions....

[Pretty Boy]

He also played in Liverpools defeat to Northampton in the following seasons League Cup so didn't serve a suspension there.

[givescotlandfreedom]

Ewan Murray Jambo journalist has tweeted saying Hearts checked it out before yesterday and no ban on transfer certificate. Rule in England are that ban can be taken for a non specific tournament eg league game.

Still doesn't make sense as he played next league game for Huns so surely this null and voids the non specific tournament rule.

Something stinks here. No doubt yams checked it out but if you were ICT you would be asking questions....

Ewan Murray could also just be lying to get us to shut up. This needs to be investigated.

[Emerald]

Is there someone we could ask for clarification :greengrin

Is it not a wee bit embarrassing getting involved with this (at least on here). :greengrin They will probably get banned from the first round, when they weren't involved, if their punishment follows the same lines as their signing embargo.
:rules:

[Spike Mandela]

There appears to be no evidence anywhere of him serving a ban for this red card?

[HibeeSince85]

No gonna lie. If they got kicked out the cup I'll be pishing maself laughing at that manky lot.

[Del Boy]

Interesting....

[Hermit Crab]

Clutching at more straws!! Boils down to jealousy that they are in the final and we are not!! Just leave it. #paranoia

[hawkhill harp]

I've just read a BBC report from the time saying that wilson would serve his suspension in the following seasons competition,by which time he had already moved to liverpool,so he definately hasn't served any suspension for the offence,so,you would have thought that suspension should have been served yesterday.

[flash]

Clutching at more straws!! Boils down to jealousy that they are in the final and we are not!! Just leave it. #paranoia

There's a surprise...........

[CallumLaidlaw]

@jamiekborthwick: Just off the phone with the SFL re: Danny Wilson. Will bash up the gist of it and spam you all a link #funsundaywork

[Hermit Crab]

There's a surprise...........

What is?

[CallumLaidlaw]

I've just read a BBC report from the time saying that wilson would serve his suspension in the following seasons competition,by which time he had already moved to liverpool,so he definately hasn't served any suspension for the offence,so,you would have thought that suspension should have been served yesterday.

Seems to be then that it carrie over to the next season and he served it by missing Liverpools first league game

[Spike Mandela]

Seems to be then that it carrie over to the next season and he served it by missing Liverpools first league game

Do you mean League cup game?

[hawkhill harp]

Do you mean League cup game?

He definately played in liverpools only league cup game that season,so,if what callum laidlaw says is correct,it seems he served his suspension by missing a league match that he probably wouldnt have played in anyway!

[Sean1875]

This would be too good to be true, not getting my hopes up.

[Col2]

He definately played in liverpools only league cup game that season,so,if what callum laidlaw says is correct,it seems he served his suspension by missing a league match that he probably wouldnt have played in anyway!

Yup but I think the key is documented evidence from FA that says what game he was suspended for in August 2010. If he was not on the suspension list then he hasn't taken his suspension.

[CallumLaidlaw]

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/hearts/211606-danny-wilson-was-eligible-for-hearts-semi-final-despite-2010-red-card/

[truehibernian]

Ooops......I can see Inverness progressing this. Not Hearts at fault, but the authorities if they've boo-boo'd.

[EK_Hibs]

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/hearts/211606-danny-wilson-was-eligible-for-hearts-semi-final-despite-2010-red-card/

Ah well,

COME ON YE SAINTS!!!!!

[areid07]

From S.F.A Website


Suspensions Incurred between 06/03/2010 to 24/03/2010 Inc.
Date Player (Club) Suspension
Scottish Premier League


21/03/10 STEVEN WHITTAKER (RANGERS F.C.) 1 Scottish League Cup match
21/03/10 DANIEL WILSON (RANGERS F.C.) 1 Scottish League Cup match

[Scouse Hibee]

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/hearts/211606-danny-wilson-was-eligible-for-hearts-semi-final-despite-2010-red-card/

According to that the suspension has disappeared from the certificate without ever being served!

[bob12345]

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/hearts/211606-danny-wilson-was-eligible-for-hearts-semi-final-despite-2010-red-card/

I think it fails to mention that players coming into England with bans are non tournament specific, so he served it with Liverpool's first league game.

[Gatecrasher]

According to that the suspension has disappeared from the certificate without ever being served!
:agree:

looks like it, no record of which game he has actually missed.

[Col2]

Ooops......I can see Inverness progressing this. Not Hearts at fault, but the authorities if they've boo-boo'd.

Agree. IF he shouldn't have played then ICT will argue a clear advantage gained. It was decided on pens so fine margins and all that.

It may not be Hearts fault or even not completely SFL/SFA (FA might have screwed up a bit) but that not the point. ICT would be disadvantaged.

[danhibees1875]

I think it fails to mention that players coming into England with bans are non tournament specific, so he served it with Liverpool's first league game.

If that's true then that clears everything up. Don't know why a journalist couldn't have simply said that rather then the convoluted story that was published.

[Billy Whizz]

If that's true then that clears everything up. Don't know why a journalist couldn't have simply said that rather then the convoluted story that was published.

Where did this all originate from?

[Spike Mandela]

The ICT secretary needs to be the one asking questions about this.

[Billy Whizz]

The ICT secretary needs to be the one asking questions about this.

It's already taken prime position on the ICT fans forum

[danhibees1875]

Where did this all originate from?

The first post I read on the subject referenced a thread on kickback that had brought it up...

[Spike Mandela]

It's already taken prime position on the ICT fans forum

Ho ho this could be funny:greengrin

[BroxburnHibee]

Is it not a wee bit embarrassing getting involved with this (at least on here). :greengrin They will probably get banned from the first round, when they weren't involved, if their punishment follows the same lines as their signing embargo.
:rules:

To be honest - I couldn't give a toss - but if it winds them up then so be it. :thumbsup:

[Emerald]

To be honest - I couldn't give a toss - but if it winds them up then so be it. :thumbsup:

Ive already changed my mind. How can a player be sent off in a Scottish Leauge Cup final and then serve a ban in another cmpetition in England. They seem to find every way possible to cheat. Kick them out. :greengrin

[GREEN WARLORD]

What is?
I think flash has caught on to your Yam/ Yam referee backing today. #nothingtoseesomovealongplease

[Leithenhibby]

I have a box of straws in the cupboard if anyone is interested


We are only looking for answers. :wink::wink:

[silverhibee]

According to that the suspension has disappeared from the certificate without ever being served!

That's how i read it too. :confused:

[AberdreamHibee]

Have emailed I.C.T. informing them.

Take that kickback. So much spew.

[O'Rourke3]

Ive already changed my mind. How can a player be sent off in a Scottish Leauge Cup final and then serve a ban in another cmpetition in England. They seem to find every way possible to cheat. Kick them out. :greengrin
Unfortunately a player could be red carded and move to another country with no intent of ever returning, therefor the ban goes with him. The fact that he was never in line to play the club's next game is irrelevant. He was banned for it and the record shows he never played.

Real pity, it could send a few of them over the edge on the EEN match comments.

[Mikey]

I have a box of straws in the cupboard if anyone is interested

Rules is rules :wink:

If he hasn't served his ban, and it's an administrative error, ICT are entitled to a replay.

Use your straws to suck that up :agree:

[Mikey]

Unfortunately a player could be red carded and move to another country with no intent of ever returning, therefor the ban goes with him. The fact that he was never in line to play the club's next game is irrelevant. He was banned for it and the record shows he never played.

Real pity, it could send a few of them over the edge on the EEN match comments.

Not convinced. Zaliukas picked up a booking in the semi that keeps him out of the final. If he could serve that ban before then in a league game he would.

The Yams are on a sticky wicket here :agree:

[kev1875]

'If he hasn't served his ban, and it's an administrative error, ICT are entitled to a replay'.


That's all it needs.

suck your own

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/aug/13/squad-sheets-liverpool-arsenal

This is a line up and lists Wilson as a possible substitute, not suspended then?

[Haymaker]

I will love it if the puddle-drinking rat eaters get booted out for this.

[BenjiOscar]

Unfortunately, he wasn't one of the listed subs. http://uk.soccerway.com/matches/2010/08/15/england/premier-league/liverpool-fc/arsenal-fc/943451/

[Mikey]

Unfortunately, he wasn't one of the listed subs. http://uk.soccerway.com/matches/2010/08/15/england/premier-league/liverpool-fc/arsenal-fc/943451/

But as far as they were concerned he was still eligible.

[SmashinGlass]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/aug/13/squad-sheets-liverpool-arsenal

This is a line up and lists Wilson as a possible substitute, not suspended then?

I think the key bit from this article is that he is listed as a potential sub and also that fact that it lists suspensions as "None" :thumbsup:

[Sir David Gray]

I have no words for how funny it would be if Hearts were kicked out of the competition and Inverness took their place in the final.

I'm not going to lie, I would probably wet myself. :faf:

[SurferRosa]

Unfortunately, he wasn't one of the listed subs. http://uk.soccerway.com/matches/2010/08/15/england/premier-league/liverpool-fc/arsenal-fc/943451/

It doesn`t matter. He wasn`t named on the suspension list.

[LeighLoyal]

definite case to answer!

[.Sean.]

Interesting. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here who's e-mailed Caley to let them know about this.

[Sir David Gray]

Interesting. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here who's e-mailed Caley to let them know about this.

Why stop at Caley?

I think the SFA and the SFL should be informed as well, purely out of courtesy, of course. :wink:

[#FromTheCapital]

Don't see the point in this to be honest. Would be ****ing hilarious if hearts got punished for this but I think there's more chance of the pope going on an orange march

[SurferRosa]

definite case to answer!

I would think so. A poster on the Bounce put up a very interesting SFA document relating to this ( i dont know if it`s on here. If it is then i apologise) which basically states that unless the ban was for foul play/violent conduct etc, which Wilsons wasn`t, then as that suspension was gained in the Scottish League cup then it HAS to be served in the Scottish League cup. Now, that to me suggests that, unless they`ve started playing the Scottish League cup in England without my knowledge, then he can`t have served said suspension. On top of that, he wasn`t on the suspension list for their first league game, he played in their first League cup game and he played in their first FA cup match. It appears he served no suspension in England at all anyway. Also, AFAIK, the onus would be on the club ( Hearts ) to properly check the eligibility of the player......did they ask the SFL? Did they check with the FA in England?

Someone, somewhere should definately have a case to answer i would have thought. It certainly appears as though Wilson should not have played yesterday.

[greenginger]

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__League_Cup_Rules__1 346426034.pdf


Rules 8.2 and 8.3 seem to be the ones which would apply in this case. Replay at Easter Road :agree:

[edinburghhibee]

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__League_Cup_Rules__1 346426034.pdf

Rules 8.2 and 8.3 seem to be the ones which would apply in this case. Replay at Easter Road :agree:

Easter road!!!! Na... Send the mericks to Aberdeens ground

[HoboHarry]

Easter road!!!! Na... Send the mericks to Aberdeens ground
Why would we give the money to Aberdeen? So they deface our toilets, so what? They will be paying the cleaning bill.

[Sir David Gray]

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__League_Cup_Rules__1 346426034.pdf


Rules 8.2 and 8.3 seem to be the ones which would apply in this case. Replay at Easter Road :agree:

Why bother with a replay?

Inverness should be reinstated and given a place in the final. :agree:

[Ultrabee1-0]

Please be true this would be comedy at its best and karma not going there way! **** the hearts!

[EdinMike]

I'll put money on nothing happening !

What's my odds ?!

[Ozyhibby]

This should be an easy one for a reporter to solve. There will be a paper trail leading to whichever game he served the ban. If it was the game against Arsenal then there will be a letter from the FA advising Liverpool that he is suspended.
If no such letter exists then he was ineligible on Sat and Hearts are in breach of the rules.

[HibeeN]

Even if Wilson was meant to be banned, could the SFL/SFA really throw Hearts out if Hearts had checked with them prior to fielding the player? If that's the case, it would be the SFL/SFA who made the mistake so it would be hard for them to justify punishing Hearts when they told them that Wilson was eligible to play.

Of course, in this scenario ICT would still feel (rightly) aggrieved. So not sure what would happen.

[Ozyhibby]

Even if Wilson was meant to be banned, could the SFL/SFA really throw Hearts out if Hearts had checked with them prior to fielding the player? If that's the case, it would be the SFL/SFA who made the mistake so it would be hard for them to justify punishing Hearts when they told them that Wilson was eligible to play.

Of course, in this scenario ICT would still feel (rightly) aggrieved. So not sure what would happen.

Depends on how Hearts checked and with whom. If they just called the SFL and asked if their two loan signings could play as they had clean transfer certificates then there could be a problem for them. If they made specific reference to his sending off for the old Rangers then a replay would be more appropriate.

[greenginger]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/dunfermline-face-replaying-7-1-scottish-1047244


Just two years ago Dunfermline were forced to replay a Scottish Cup tie when they brought on a sub who should have been suspended.

They claimed they did'nt know about the suspension which came from a previous season.

The Pars were 4 up at the time and the player only played 30 minutes.

Wilson played 120 minutes and scored in the shoot-out.

Replay coming up ! :thumbsup:

[blackpoolhibs]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/dunfermline-face-replaying-7-1-scottish-1047244


Just two years ago Dunfermline were forced to replay a Scottish Cup tie when they brought on a sub who should have been suspended.

They claimed they did'nt know about the suspension which came from a previous season.

The Pars were 4 up at the time and the player only played 30 minutes.

Wilson played 120 minutes and scored in the shoot-out.

Replay coming up ! :thumbsup:

From what i read, a replay should be the minimum punishment, and another payday for Hibs?

[Gatecrasher]

From what i read, a replay should be the minimum punishment, and another payday for Hibs?
After smearing ***** all over the walls I don't think they manky *******s should be anywhere near our stadium.

[GoldenEagle]

As at May 6th 2010 issue number 42 of the list of suspensions Danny Wilson Rangers was to serve a one match ban in the league cup, this was a specified cup competition suspension for the SFL league cup only.

It's on the sfa web site under disciplinary, current suspensions.

Wilson was transferred to Liverpool on 21st July 2010. Therefore Rangers have not played in another league cup tie.
The ban, as previously stated, is specific to the league cup and cannot IMO be transferred to Liverpool.

The ban is removed from future lists when the player was unregistered/transferred.

However it clearly states that the list does not include any player who has been unregistered and that this information must be checked with the sfa.

[Sylar]

If anyone has made a mess here, it's FIFA with their inaccurate form.

It should be dealt with as an internal matter for FIFA - if Hearts checked and the SFA said it was fine, there's no case for a replay.

[GoldenEagle]

I should also add though that at the start of the new disciplinary code that all previous cautions were wiped out, I wonder if this applied to cup suspensions as well which would have allowed Wilson to play.

[SurferRosa]

As at May 6th 2010 issue number 42 of the list of suspensions Danny Wilson Rangers was to serve a one match ban in the league cup, this was a specified cup competition suspension for the SFL league cup only.

It's on the sfa web site under disciplinary, current suspensions.

Wilson was transferred to Liverpool on 21st July 2010. Therefore Rangers have not played in another league cup tie.
The ban, as previously stated, is specific to the league cup and cannot IMO be transferred to Liverpool.

The ban is removed from future lists when the player was unregistered/transferred.

However it clearly states that the list does not include any player who has been unregistered and that this information must be checked with the sfa.

:agree: Exactly. To me, this is the crucial point. The suspension has to be served in the same competition. It`s written in black and white in their rulebook. It is not transferrable. He cannot have served it in England.....therefor he was not eligible to play on Saturday.

Assuming that the SFA/SFL dont just ignore their own rules ( :faf:.....yes, yes. i know ) then Hearts should be heaved out the competition. In my humble opinion though, i think that the most Caley can expect is a replay.

[JohnStephens91]

I would love it if the game had to be replayed, sadly it doesn't look like happening.

[StevieC]

The ban, as previously stated, is specific to the league cup and cannot IMO be transferred to Liverpool.

I've been led to believe that if the suspension was transfered to England then it does not need to be cup specific and can be served in any game. This would mean that it could, as has been claimed, have been served in the opening league game Liverpool v Arsenal.

However, a newspaper preview of the game stated that neither team had any players suspended. The only ones that can clear this up are the English FA.

ps Liverpool played a EUFA Cup game prior to the league game that Danny played in, although UEFA competitions probably don't recognise domestic suspensions (unless they are date specific).

[Ozyhibby]

Inverness seem happy enough.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ictfc%2Ffeed+%28ICTFC+Officia l+Feed%29

Still no explanation of when he served the ban.

[edinburghhibee]

That bursts that bubble oh well nice try

[EK_Hibs]

Ffs inverness !!!!!!!!!

[Leithenhibby]

Inverness seem happy enough.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ictfc%2Ffeed+%28ICTFC+Officia l+Feed%29

Still no explanation of when he served the ban.


Doesn't say that in the statement :wink:

And IF, the SFA/ FA or SFL did screw up then they will keep that in house ........

[greenginger]

Doesn't say that in the statement :wink:

And IF, the SFA/ FA or SFL did screw up then they will keep that in house ........

Last thing the SFL,SPL or SFA would want is a St Mirren v Inverness final.

!5,000 crowd - it would be Armageddon as predicted by the Sevco appologists. :greengrin

[Leithenhibby]

Last thing the SFL,SPL or SFA would want is a St Mirren v Inverness final.

!5,000 crowd - it would be Armageddon as predicted by the Sevco appologists.
:greengrin


:greengrin We still need this answered though. Paperwork needs to be clear for everyone to understand the situation :agree:

[GoldenEagle]

I still maintain that the ban would not be transferable to another country, it is specific to the Scottish League Cup.

It should have been re-applied as soon as Wilson was re-registered in Scotland.

Quite simply unless all historical bans were wiped at start of last season when new judicial panel came in then Wilson would and should have been suspended from the next league cup tie in Scotland upon re-registering.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Don't think he was ineligible - it was a straight red, so the next league games would have carried the suspension.

If Saints play like they did today they'll beat Hearts - I thought for much of the game today Saints were excellent and played very brave football. Well done wee Danny Lennon - he'll be as passionate about beating Hearts as we are :agree:

As for Billy McKay.........that will haunt the rest of your career son, a right 'and Smith must score' momento :rolleyes:

:agree: It was such a bad miss they should start checking betting patterns.

[Ozyhibby]

:greengrin We still need this answered though. Paperwork needs to be clear for everyone to understand the situation :agree:

You get the impression that the authorities and the press are just hoping this one goes away. Still no explanation as to what game he was suspended from.

[Leithenhibby]

You get the impression that the authorities and the press are just hoping this one goes away. Still no explanation as to what game he was suspended from.


I would think this is the situation, but if, something is wrong then we shall have to hang tight as the Rulers delve and make the phone calls required.

We can talk about it until we are green in the face, it needs to be taken up by someone in the know!!.... AND, soon. :wink:

[GoldenEagle]

Email info@scottishfa.co.uk and ask them to clarify specific cup suspension rules and if they are reapplied upon re-registering.

[SurferRosa]

:greengrin We still need this answered though. Paperwork needs to be clear for everyone to understand the situation :agree:

:agree: I agree. Terry Butcher should be calling the press demanding to know who screwed up and shouting for transparency.

It worked for Sally....

[Spike Mandela]

Inverness seem happy enough.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ictfc%2Ffeed+%28ICTFC+Officia l+Feed%29

Still no explanation of when he served the ban.

Surely someone has to ask when he served his suspension? Just because a piece of paper said he didn't have one it wouldn't really be surprising if there was an adminitrative error with the incompetent bunch we have running the game in Scotland and/or England.

Any failure to act on an inellagability issue will no doubt be seized upon by Sevco in their EBT investigation and any forthcoming punishment ,if any and claim it is unfair.

Surely not another cover up.:rolleyes:

[scott7_0(Prague)]

This thread has turned very embarrassing, the lad was clear to play end of. get over it. :rolleyes:

[Spike Mandela]

This thread has turned very embarrassing, the lad was clear to play end of. get over it. :rolleyes:

Sorry Mr Ogilvie.:na na:

[Hermit Crab]

This thread has turned very embarrassing, the lad was clear to play end of. get over it. :rolleyes:

This X10

[Judas Iscariot]

This thread has turned very embarrassing, the lad was clear to play end of. get over it. :rolleyes:

Aww :dummytit:

[Pete]

This thread has turned very embarrassing, the lad was clear to play end of. get over it. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't say embarrassing because if there is an issue it needs to be discussed.

Personally, I'm not really bothered and nobody else should be. The two teams in the final are there on merit so well done to them.

We have our own business to take care of and our own exciting times to look forward to without worrying about anyone else!

[AberdreamHibee]

Love how the yams actually think I have emailed Inverness...
:fishin:

[MacBean]

This thread has turned very embarrassing, the lad was clear to play end of. get over it. :rolleyes:

Couldn't agree more. This is a very cringeworthy thread.

[greenginger]

Surely someone has to ask when he served his suspension? Just because a piece of paper said he didn't have one it wouldn't really be surprising if there was an adminitrative error with the incompetent bunch we have running the game in Scotland and/or England.

Any failure to act on an inellagability issue will no doubt be seized upon by Sevco in their EBT investigation and any forthcoming punishment ,if any and claim it is unfair.

Surely not another cover up.:rolleyes:


Did Danny Wilson not have any recollections of being ordered off in the League Cup Final and getting a letter to say he would be suspended for his next league cup tie rather than an SPL match.

It was less than 3 years ago. :confused:

[MartinfaePorty]

Apologies if this someone has mentioned this previously, but I run a Sunday amateur team (very low level!) and we are constantly reminded to check the suspended lists before we play a new player (this is emailed regularly and contains suspensions that haven't been served, going back years). The SAFA, I assume through SFA records/database, also check against any international suspensions (I know this is hard to believe for what is basically a pub league, but someone has actually had to serve a suspension in Scotland that they had accrued in another Europen country).

The bottom line is if we checked with the League that a guy was free to play and were told it was ok to play him, then I would take that as read. Using the same logic, as others have said, Hearts appear to have done all they can and it would seem to be an administrative error at the SFA, if there has indeed been one made.

Good to make them sweat though!

[LeighLoyal]

Apologies if this someone has mentioned this previously, but I run a Sunday amateur team (very low level!) and we are constantly reminded to check the suspended lists before we play a new player (this is emailed regularly and contains suspensions that haven't been served, going back years). The SAFA, I assume through SFA records/database, also check against any international suspensions (I know this is hard to believe for what is basically a pub league, but someone has actually had to serve a suspension in Scotland that they had accrued in another Europen country).

The bottom line is if we checked with the League that a guy was free to play and were told it was ok to play him, then I would take that as read. Using the same logic, as others have said, Hearts appear to have done all they can and it would seem to be an administrative error at the SFA, if there has indeed been one made.

Good to make them sweat though!


So how do they compensate ICT if they made a howler? :confused:

[Ozyhibby]

This thread has turned very embarrassing, the lad was clear to play end of. get over it. :rolleyes:

You're easy embarrassed.

[O'Rourke3]

Unfortunately a player could be red carded and move to another country with no intent of ever returning, therefor the ban goes with him. The fact that he was never in line to play the club's next game is irrelevant. He was banned for it and the record shows he never played.

Real pity, it could send a few of them over the edge on the EEN match comments.


Not convinced. Zaliukas picked up a booking in the semi that keeps him out of the final. If he could serve that ban before then in a league game he would.

The Yams are on a sticky wicket here :agree:

Zal will serve his suspension this season if he stays in the competition it was earned. If he goes, in the current transfer window the suspension goes with him. A red card offence must be punished.
I however would enjoy the meltdown and general dismay if there was a case here. They'll never bake enough cakes to get over it :greengrin

[SmashinGlass]

Inverness seem happy enough.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ictfc%2Ffeed+%28ICTFC+Officia l+Feed%29

Still no explanation of when he served the ban.

Has this statement changed since first posted? As of now, it appears that they are not pleased and seeking a review:

Club Statement

There has been considerable debate in the Media about the eligibility of Hearts player, Danny Wilson to play in last Saturday's Scottish Communities League Cup Semi-final.

We have spoken to the SFA Disciplinary Committee who have confirmed that Danny WAS eligible to play on Saturday.

This was checked out by Hearts and the SPL prior to Saturday's game. There was no Notice of Suspension accompanying his registration paperwork when he returned from Liverpool FC.

As a result of discussions that have taken place throughout the afternoon, the club will be seeking further details and an explanation on events surrounding this matter.

[SMAXXA]

Has this statement changed since first posted? As of now, it appears that they are not pleased and seeking a review:

Club Statement

There has been considerable debate in the Media about the eligibility of Hearts player, Danny Wilson to play in last Saturday's Scottish Communities League Cup Semi-final.

We have spoken to the SFA Disciplinary Committee who have confirmed that Danny WAS eligible to play on Saturday.

This was checked out by Hearts and the SPL prior to Saturday's game. There was no Notice of Suspension accompanying his registration paperwork when he returned from Liverpool FC.

As a result of discussions that have taken place throughout the afternoon, the club will be seeking further details and an explanation on events surrounding this matter.

Defo changed from the previous statement :thumbsup:

[Mikey]

As a result of discussions that have taken place throughout the afternoon, the club will be seeking further details and an explanation on events surrounding this matter.

Sounds like they've asked the basic question.......... "when did he serve his ban".

I hope they let us know the answer they're given.

[NYHibby]

Has this statement changed since first posted? As of now, it appears that they are not pleased and seeking a review:


Yes, the bold bit is new.

[SmashinGlass]

Yes, the bold bit is new.


Defo changed from the previous statement :thumbsup:


Sounds like they've asked the basic question.......... "when did he serve his ban".

I hope they let us know the answer they're given.

Excellent :greengrin

[Mikey]

Excellent :greengrin

Said without a hint of embarrassment :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Excellent news. If he served his ban in England there will be paperwork from the English FA. This could have all been cleared up by now. The SFA could have got a copy of the notification of suspension that the FA sent to Liverpool and released it today. Instead we have had silence from them and the media.
Makes you wonder what the problem is?

[FranckSuzy]

Excellent news. If he served his ban in England there will be paperwork from the English FA. This could have all been cleared up by now. The SFA could have got a copy of the notification of suspension that the FA sent to Liverpool and released it today. Instead we have had silence from them and the media.
Makes you wonder what the problem is?

I emailed the FA yesterday and got this prompt reply today....

'Thank you for contacting the Football Association. As the suspension was handed out under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Football Association, you would need to contact them for full clarification'.

[Gmack7]

BIG teams are allowed to do this surely

[Ozyhibby]

I emailed the FA yesterday and got this prompt reply today....

'Thank you for contacting the Football Association. As the suspension was handed out under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Football Association, you would need to contact them for full clarification'.

In other words 'we have no idea what your talking about, it's a Scottish suspension to be served in Scotland'

[CallumLaidlaw]

Quite cringey reading on kickback reading their double standards about how terrible ICT Are for now questioning this. There is ONE guy speaking a bit of sense. -


Aye cos if it was the other way round we would just accept it and move on.



We'd better hope that he served his suspension in that Liverpool v Arsenal game because I don't think it matters if the FA or the SFA/SFL have made an error as the onus is on us to get it right.

He'll no doubt get called a Hobo at any second.

[Mikey]

In other words 'we have no idea what your talking about, it's a Scottish suspension to be served in Scotland'

:agree:

[SmashinGlass]

Said without a hint of embarrassment :greengrin

Absolutely.

Am actually in the midst of a debate on Facebook involving two friends, one a yam and the other one of our own. Interesting that the yam is trotting out the usual "nothing to see here, move along" line, despite the swiftly growing evidence to the contrary. Am enjoying laying the foundations of an arguement which will no doubt descend to the vagaries of 5-1 any minute :greengrin

[EdinMike]

I was taking the piss with this earlier but is there a chance this might go through ?!

[WindyMiller]

Quite cringey reading on kickback reading their double standards about how terrible ICT Are for now questioning this. There is ONE guy speaking a bit of sense. -



He'll no doubt get called a Hobo at any second.

Maybe he's undercover? :cb

[Mikey]

.......... two friends, one a yam..........

Sort yourself out laddie :tsk tsk:

[clerriehibs]

Not a story worth reporting in the EEN ... seems they only have "good news days" so far as the yams are concerned. Pathetic, sycophantic rag.

[Skol]

It appears to me that whoever is responsible for suspensions has mucked up here (Either the SFA or SFL).

They have told Hearts that Wilson can play, therefore Hearts have done nothing wrong and checked this out. However, they seem to have failed to check their facts properly and ensured a suspension has been served.

Based on this, there is no punishment due to Hearts, but ICT rightly have a case for compensation or an apology at least

I am sure that there have been players who on returning to Scotland have had an old suspension to serve, which was not served while in England.

[clerriehibs]

It appears to me that whoever is responsible for suspensions has mucked up here (Either the SFA or SFL).

They have told Hearts that Wilson can play, therefore Hearts have done nothing wrong and checked this out. However, they seem to have failed to check their facts properly and ensured a suspension has been served.

Based on this, there is no punishment due to Hearts, but ICT rightly have a case for compensation or an apology at least

I am sure that there have been players who on returning to Scotland have had an old suspension to serve, which was not served while in England.

You know that the merricks asked the question beforehand, then ?

[Skol]

Fair point, I probbaly read that on kickback :-)

Assuming Hearts asked then no case to answer for Hearts...if they didnt ask then thats a whole new matter.

[SurferRosa]

Quite cringey reading on kickback reading their double standards about how terrible ICT Are for now questioning this. There is ONE guy speaking a bit of sense. -

" we better hope he served his suspension in that Liverpool v Arsenal game "



There was no " Daniel Wilson " on the suspension list for that match, therefore I think it`s been proven that he didn`t.

[#FromTheCapital]

You know that the merricks asked the question beforehand, then ?

According to Caleys statement they did.

I still can't see anything happening with this to be honest. If it turns out that he wasn't eligible to play then at the very most caley will get an apology.

[SMAXXA]

It appears to me that whoever is responsible for suspensions has mucked up here (Either the SFA or SFL).

They have told Hearts that Wilson can play, therefore Hearts have done nothing wrong and checked this out. However, they seem to have failed to check their facts properly and ensured a suspension has been served.

Based on this, there is no punishment due to Hearts, but ICT rightly have a case for compensation or an apology at least

I am sure that there have been players who on returning to Scotland have had an old suspension to serve, which was not served while in England.

I disagree, if they have fielded an uneligable player thats the fact and its againt the rules. What happens regarding comp and an apology would more than likly be heating to Hearts and a replay orderd for the game. Thats how I would see it anyway.

[Ozyhibby]

If it's proven that he is ineligible then there are two options.

1. If Hearts got an assurance from the SFA that he could play then a replay is the fairest option.
2. If Hearts did not get proper assurances then they should be expelled from the tournament.

[mglancy23]

If true ict will get an apology nothing more. Danny Wilson will be banned from the final

[Saorsa]

If it's proven that he is ineligible then there are two options.

1. If Hearts got an assurance from the SFA that he could play then a replay is the fairest option.
2. If Hearts did not get proper assurances then they should be expelled from the tournament.I agree :agree: Whoever's fault it was it certainly wisnae ICT's yet they're out of the cup. If a player who shouldnae have been playing played a part in it then the very least they should get is a replay IMO.

[Skol]

If Hearts were told he was clear to play, its hard to see how they can be punished - its not their fault

[Saorsa]

If Hearts were told he was clear to play, its hard to see how they can be punished - its not their faultIt's isnae the fault of ITC yet they're out and will lose a fortune, that's less fair.

[broomie hibs]

Surely this is a matter for ICT hearts and the sfa , a lot of knicker twisting in this thread like , nae wonder we get nowhere as a club when all we do is concern ourselves with yam business !

[SMAXXA]

It's isnae the fault of ITC yet they're out and will lose a fortune, that's less fair.

:agree:

[greenginger]

All the SPL, SFA and SFL Brass have been at league reconstruction meetings all day. Its probably only the tea boy been looking at the suspension issues and scared to say anything was done wrong.

There might be answers tomorrow. :agree:

[SMAXXA]

Surely this is a matter for ICT hearts and the sfa , a lot of knicker twisting in this thread like , nae wonder we get nowhere as a club when all we do is concern ourselves with yam business !

:bye:

Nowhere as a club aye good one

[Saorsa]

Surely this is a matter for ICT hearts and the sfa , a lot of knicker twisting in this thread like , nae wonder we get nowhere as a club when all we do is concern ourselves with yam business !:hmmm:

[Jack Hackett]

Surely this is a matter for ICT hearts and the sfa , a lot of knicker twisting in this thread like , nae wonder we get nowhere as a club when all we do is concern ourselves with yam business !

How does our concerning ourselves with this affect how the club perform?

Your first post btw

"First time post here after years of lurking so go easy please ! , i cant believe all the negativity that comes with being a hibs fan afterall its not unusual for us to go on a pre and post xmas slump..."

The rest of your posts are in a similar vein. Consider yourself 'Outed'

LTYF

[Sylar]

The SFA are going to look incredibly silly if it turns out they've cleared a player who should have been suspended...but having said that, it's the fault of the authority in question and not the club.

It's not up to the clubs to undertake the role of administrating the paperwork for all football business.

Hearts had nothing to do with the transfer of his documents from Rangers to Liverpool and weren't involved in updating the paperwork of a player who was nothing to do with the club until a week or so ago.

Hearts checked (by all accounts) and were cleared by the SFA. If anyone is to be brought to task here, it's the SFA, English FA or FIFA where an administrative cock-up has occurred.

If a similar occurrence happened with us, let's not pretend that we wouldn't be decrying an administration error and pointing out that our club had done all they could in seeking clarification and obtaining clearance.

[Part/Time Supporter]

If true ict will get an apology nothing more. Danny Wilson will be banned from the final

Absolutely no chance of that, as it would be an admission that he should have been suspended for the semi-final.

ICT are entitled to a satisfactory explanation of where and when the suspension was served. If it wasn't served, then they should either be compensated for loss of revenue or the match should be replayed (original match voided).

[Scouse Hibee]

Surely this is a matter for ICT hearts and the sfa , a lot of knicker twisting in this thread like , nae wonder we get nowhere as a club when all we do is concern ourselves with yam business !
Don't get to concerned about it, daft yams come on here all the time concerning themselves with our business!!!! Some of them are that daft they think we don't know.

[cabbageandribs1875]

:hmmm:



this :agree:

[broomie hibs]

How does our concerning ourselves with this affect how the club perform?

Your first post btw

"First time post here after years of lurking so go easy please ! , i cant believe all the negativity that comes with being a hibs fan afterall its not unusual for us to go on a pre and post xmas slump..."

The rest of your posts are in a similar vein. Consider yourself 'Outed'

LTYF


Yeah well done officer dibble its a fair cop !

[Part/Time Supporter]

The SFA are going to look incredibly silly if it turns out they've cleared a player who should have been suspended...but having said that, it's the fault of the authority in question and not the club.

It's not up to the clubs to undertake the role of administrating the paperwork for all football business.

Hearts had nothing to do with the transfer of his documents from Rangers to Liverpool and weren't involved in updating the paperwork of a player who was nothing to do with the club until a week or so ago.

Hearts checked (by all accounts) and were cleared by the SFA. If anyone is to be brought to task here, it's the SFA, English FA or FIFA where an administrative cock-up has occurred.

If a similar occurrence happened with us, let's not pretend that we wouldn't be decrying an administration error and pointing out that our club had done all they could in seeking clarification and obtaining clearance.

Competition rules are clear and unambiguous, the responsibility for ensuring a player is eligible lies with the club.

[Sylar]

Competition rules are clear and unambiguous, the responsibility for ensuring a player is eligible lies with the club.

And if they've checked with the governing body who have cleared the player based on the paperwork saying all is above board, what more can the club do?

[SMAXXA]

How does our concerning ourselves with this affect how the club perform?

Your first post btw

"First time post here after years of lurking so go easy please ! , i cant believe all the negativity that comes with being a hibs fan afterall its not unusual for us to go on a pre and post xmas slump..."

The rest of your posts are in a similar vein. Consider yourself 'Outed'

LTYF

:agree:

[Velma Dinkley]

And if they've checked with the governing body who have cleared the player based on the paperwork saying all is above board, what more can the club do?

checked with danny? :wink:

[Part/Time Supporter]

And if they've checked with the governing body who have cleared the player based on the paperwork saying all is above board, what more can the club do?

Check with the (English) FA that he served the suspension there.

[ronaldo7]

And if they've checked with the governing body who have cleared the player based on the paperwork saying all is above board, what more can the club do?

Do they have it in writing.

The fax paper has run out:aok:

[Saorsa]

Competition rules are clear and unambiguous, the responsibility for ensuring a player is eligible lies with the club.:agree: They should have found out when he served the suspension regardless of what they were told, the player at least must have known he never served it (if he hasn't) IMO.

[degenerated]

Yeah well done officer dibble its a fair cop !

9300

[SMAXXA]

Out of interest was the first anyone knew about this when the OP raised it on here? If so and they get done would be funny as **** and the OP deserves a hero status on here :greengrin

[broomie hibs]

9300

Why ? i think you need some yammery on this board just to balance things up a bit , i promise i wont swear poke fun or make mischief ! pleasssssse , i like here !

[Jack Hackett]

9300


:faf::smokin

[Part/Time Supporter]

Out of interest was the first anyone knew about this when the OP raised it on here? If so and they get done would be funny as **** and the OP deserves a hero status on here :greengrin

It was first raised on JKB

:foot:

[Scouse Hibee]

Why ? i think you need some yammery on this board just to balance things up a bit , i promise i wont swear poke fun or make mischief ! pleasssssse , i like here !

Little point in you staying then :greengrin

[broomie hibs]

Little point in you staying then :greengrin
Why not , why does this place have to be a closed shop ?

[SMAXXA]

It was first raised on JKB

:foot:

:offski:

[Saorsa]

Little point in you staying then :greengrin:agree:


http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b168/jamie1971/smilies%202/ltyf.gif



:greengrin

[SMAXXA]

Why not , why does this place have to be a closed shop ?

It doesnt bother me who people support as long as they have balanced points and fair comments, none of the taunting bile spouting guff you often see with jambos coming on here.

[Barney McGrew]

Why ? i think you need some yammery on this board just to balance things up a bit , i promise i wont swear poke fun or make mischief ! pleasssssse , i like here !

So you're a yam who decided to use a username with Hibs in it but you're not here to cause trouble?

[Sylar]

Check with the (English) FA that he served the suspension there.

That's up to the SFA, not Hearts.

[Barney McGrew]

Why not , why does this place have to be a closed shop ?

It isn't but you're not staying to enjoy the hospitality.

Away and fling ***** at yerself, or as you yams do, take some of it and draw on the wall :bye:

[Saorsa]

Why not , why does this place have to be a closed shop ?seems it's closed tae you anyway :bye:


http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b168/jamie1971/smilies%202/ltyf.gif

[greenlex]

Just another thing to stick in yer craw about those Jammy *****. The luckiest club in existence. Just to rub it in they play an illegible player and get away with it. ****ing unbelievable. I must have been a right **** in a previous life.:brickwall:brickwall:brickwall :dummytit::dummytit::dummytit:

[Saorsa]

Just another thing to stick in yer craw about those Jammy *****. The luckiest club in existence. Just to rub it in they play an illegible player and get away with it. ****ing unbelievable. I must have been a right **** in a previous life.:brickwall:brickwall:brickwall :dummytit::dummytit::dummytit::wink:



:greengrin

[greenlex]

:wink:



:greengrin :greengrin

[Sergey]

The BBC are now reporting the story :thumbsup:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21239532#

[Saorsa]

The BBC are now reporting the story :thumbsup:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21239532#Really hope ICT kick up a stink about this until it's proven one way or the other and demand a replay if it's found he shouldnae have played. No matter who's mistake it was, it certainly wisnae theirs and there's nae way they should lose out.

[SMAXXA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21239532

And so it starts.......eventually :greengrin

[21.05.2016]

The BBC are now reporting the story :thumbsup:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21239532#

Would be hilarious if it had to be replayed, but highly doubt anything will be done unfortunately. Those jammy *******s squirm themselves out of everything.

[soupy]

If and I mean if it went to a replay would I be right in thinking Zal would be suspended for that game as I think yellows in the previous game would stand???

[Mikey]

It was first raised on JKB

:foot:

If the Yams get booted hibs.net will be sponsoring said poster :agree:

[Mikey]

The BBC are now reporting the story :thumbsup:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21239532#



"As a result of discussions that have taken place, the club will be seeking further details and an explanation,"

That's all it needs, one simple question. Tell them when the ban was served and that's the end of it.

Easy :agree:

[SMAXXA]

http://ictsupporterstrust.co.uk/news/trust-news/260-league-cup-semi-final-statement

Supporters Trust statement

[Skol]

If and I mean if it went to a replay would I be right in thinking Zal would be suspended for that game as I think yellows in the previous game would stand???

And Robinson

[ronaldo7]

Caley Jags keeping cool on it at the mo.

http://ictsupporterstrust.co.uk/news/trust-news/260-league-cup-semi-final-statement

[Kaff]

Absolutely no chance of that, as it would be an admission that he should have been suspended for the semi-final.

ICT are entitled to a satisfactory explanation of where and when the suspension was served. If it wasn't served, then they should either be compensated for loss of revenue or the match should be replayed (original match voided).

And another tie at ER? We get two pay days and they get bumped out :na na: please!!

[RoxburghHibs]

And another tie at ER? We get two pay days and they get bumped out :na na: please!!

Anyone know how much we got for hosting this match?

[Mr White]

http://ictsupporterstrust.co.uk/news/trust-news/260-league-cup-semi-final-statement

Supporters Trust statement

Thats a good statement, keeping their dignity but asking the question. Doubt hearts would be so reserved if the shoe was on the other foot, I can just imagine john mcglynn getting to grips with that particular molehole...

[clerriehibs]

Caley Jags keeping cool on it at the mo.

http://ictsupporterstrust.co.uk/news/trust-news/260-league-cup-semi-final-statement


That sounds like keeping it simmering to me ...

[Barney McGrew]

Doubt hearts would be so reserved if the shoe was on the other foot, I can just imagine john mcglynn getting to grips with that particular molehole...

McGlynn would be blaming Hibs. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it's our fault if anything comes of all this.

[blackpoolhibs]

Please please please please please please please.

[Prof. Shaggy]

Was it Dunfermlione who fielded an ineligible player in a cup-tie a couple of seasons back?
As I recall the punishment was a replay and a fairly hefty fine.
:greengrin

[Mr White]

Replay is the only fair outcome- if hearts were at fault they'd be out and inverness in the final; admin error = replay surely. ultimately hearts achieved an advantage that shouldn't have been available to them and inverness have been disadvantaged as a result. (IF he was ineligible of course)

[clerriehibs]

Was it Dunfermlione who fielded an ineligible player in a cup-tie a couple of seasons back?
As I recall the punishment was a replay and a fairly hefty fine.
:greengrin


They were launched, no replay! :greengrin

[Part/Time Supporter]

That's up to the SFA, not Hearts.

The competition rules clearly state that the onus is on the club to ensure that their players are eligible to play.

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__League_Cup_Rules__1 346426034.pdf


8.2 It shall be the responsibility of each Club participating in the Competition to ensure that its players are eligible to play in any League Cup match. If a player participates in a League Cup match, such player being ineligible to play in the Cup match as a result of his suspension by The Scottish Football Association or for any other reason, the Club for which the player participates in the League Cup match shall be liable to such penalty as the Board may decide.

8.3 Any Club infringing this Rule may be disqualified from the Competition and the tie awarded to its opponent.

If it is found that Wilson should have been suspended, then ICT have a strong argument that Hearts have violated rule 8.2. No doubt the SFL board would take the argument that Hearts were told he could play into consideration, which means that the penalty mentioned in rule 8.3 is unlikely to be enforced. But there are other penalties which could be assessed (financial, ordering a replay), which are within the discretion of the SFL board as per rule 8.2.

I still think the likeliest outcome is that the SFA will cobble together some explanation to the satisfaction of ICT, but if they don't they've got a serious problem.

[SMAXXA]

They were launched, no replay! :greengrin

U sure I thought that got replayed?

Just Checked -

Yer talking ***** :greengrin - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/d/dunfermline_athletic/8470094.stm

[EdinMike]

http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/205673_10152447550515471_288469612_n.jpg

No replay ! It's Caley in the Final !

[SaulGoodman]

U sure I thought that got replayed?

It did :agree:

[clerriehibs]

U sure I thought that got replayed?


ae you're right, I just got a bit over-excited

[Gatecrasher]

The competition rules clearly state that the onus is on the club to ensure that their players are eligible to play.

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__League_Cup_Rules__1 346426034.pdf



If it is found that Wilson should have been suspended, then ICT have a strong argument that Hearts have violated rule 8.2. No doubt the SFL board would take the argument that Hearts were told he could play into consideration, which means that the penalty mentioned in rule 8.3 is unlikely to be enforced. But there are other penalties which could be assessed (financial, ordering a replay), which are within the discretion of the SFL board as per rule 8.2.

I still think the likeliest outcome is that the SFA will cobble together some explanation to the satisfaction of ICT, but if they don't they've got a serious problem.
Since when the the Authorities in Scotland follow their own rules? They will try and sweep this aside, as you say its up to ICT to make the most of this.

[SMAXXA]

ae you're right, I just got a bit over-excited

:aok:

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/205673_10152447550515471_288469612_n.jpg

No replay ! It's Caley in the Final !

Key part is "may be disqualified". It's outlining what the maximum penalty is for fielding ineligible player(s); it's not a mandatory penalty.

First of all, of course, there would have to be a hearing to establish whether Wilson was ineligible.

[Mikey]

First of all, of course, there would have to be a hearing to establish whether Wilson was ineligible.

The hearing's tomorrow. It's me, Neil Lennon and the ghost of Pope John Paul II (with their boo's still ringing in his holy ears) on the panel :agree:

[GGTTH07]

Can't believe I posted a thread onto here and it has spread around and ended up on bbc. DELIGHTED! Would make my year for them to be thrown out like :pray::cb

[Hibercelona]

Hearts were already cheating by playing players that they signed using tax payers money (that they apparently didn't have to pay back to the council). :rolleyes:

What makes anybody think that they won't get away with this as well?

[GoldenEagle]

Anyone know how much we got for hosting this match?


20% of gate receipts after all expenses have been paid.

[Kaff]

20% of gate receipts after all expenses have been paid.

Forget the Hearts factor, we want replay anyway!

Roughly how much is that?

[Leithenhibby]

It sounds clear to me that DW has NOT, served his ban and the footballing authorities have some explaining to do .............. :aok:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/8580683.stm

[Sir David Gray]

I hope ICT pursue this as far as possible and insist that, at the very least, this game is replayed.

I think it's been made fairly clear that Danny Wilson hasn't served a suspension for his sending off in the 2010 final and he should have served that ban on Saturday.

If Hearts have requested clarification from the authorities before the game then there should still be a replay as Inverness were definitely not at fault for the whole thing and they have gone out.

Plus, if the game is replayed we get extra income as well!

Happy days! :aok:

I'm sure Rodders will be getting his prayer mat out as we speak!

[Famous5forever]

I Have written 3 letters today and posted them to comlain about this 1. to the SFA 2. To David Cameron the prime minister and 3. Alex Salmond.

[SMAXXA]

I Have written 3 letters today and posted them to comlain about this 1. to the SFA 2. To David Cameron the prime minister and 3. Alex Salmond.

:crazy::LOL:

[Sir David Gray]

I Have written 3 letters today and posted them to comlain about this 1. to the SFA 2. To David Cameron the prime minister and 3. Alex Salmond.

Good luck with letter number 3.

[Famous5forever]

Good luck with letter number 3.

Yes wasted my time with that one but my planwas to stir up things get it out there cheats and all:flag:

[Famous5forever]

Good luck with letter number 3.

I will post the replies if i get any.:flag:

[greenginger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-premier

Inverness now upping the anti. This is not going to get swept under a carpet. :thumbsup:

[SMAXXA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-premier

Inverness now upping the anti. This is not going to get swept under a carpet. :thumbsup:

We know :rolleyes:





:greengrin

[Pete]

I've heard enough.

REPLAY!!


(in Aberdeen)

[21.05.2016]

Hearts were already cheating by playing players that they signed using tax payers money (that they apparently didn't have to pay back to the council). :rolleyes:

What makes anybody think that they won't get away with this as well?

Agree. Back to the point I made earlier about how the jammy wee cheats wriggle out of everything.

They have cheated for years.

[greenginger]

We know :rolleyes:





:greengrin

Sorry, I must have skipped a couple of pages of the thread.

[ScottB]

Considering the SFA have papped teams out the cup for missed faxes and other such minimal transgressions, then so should it be in this case.

Danny Wilson was ineligible. Granted it's the SFAs fault for not noticing that, so a replay would be a fair decision.

[LaMotta]

I Have written 3 letters today and posted them to comlain about this 1. to the SFA 2. To David Cameron the prime minister and 3. Alex Salmond.

Did you right them in green biro? Letters from lunatics are often written in green biro.

[Kaff]

20% of gate receipts after all expenses have been paid.

Back of fag packet calculations

16000 @ £18 = £288,000
10% expenses?? £28,800
Nett = £260,000
20% = £52,000

I think the semi finals pool the gate money and divide between the four teams.
Therefore 40,000 @ £18 = £720,000
10% expenses = £72,000
Minus Hibs payment = £52,000
Nett = £600,000
1/4 for each team £150,000

Think we've done ok out of that
(if average ticket £22 then it equals £62,000 Hibs and £180,000 Semi finalist)

[DC_Hibs]

I Have written 3 letters today and posted them to comlain about this 1. to the SFA 2. To David Cameron the prime minister and 3. Alex Salmond.

Well done Mate. I'll be up early doors in the morning to post one to Val Doonican.
Can't do any harm.

[marinello59]

Well done Mate. I'll be up early doors in the morning to post one to Val Doonican.
Can't do any harm.

I've written to President Obama and the Krankies .

[son of haggart]

Back of fag packet calculations

16000 @ £18 = £288,000
10% expenses?? £28,800
Nett = £260,000
20% = £52,000

I think the semi finals pool the gate money and divide between the four teams.
Therefore 40,000 @ £18 = £720,000
10% expenses = £72,000
Minus Hibs payment = £52,000
Nett = £600,000
1/4 for each team £150,000

Think we've done ok out of that
(if average ticket £22 then it equals £62,000 Hibs and £180,000 Semi finalist)

It was £15 an adult £5 a child for most of the ground (I was there with my daughter and £20 all in)

[IWasThere2016]

The puddle-drinking rat eaters wanted a replay as the cake sale money has been slow this month :agree:

[ACLeith]

If ICT had not pumped Sevco in the previous round then would they have known about DW's status? Surely not, as the records of the old club must surely be confidential to brand new clubs?:rolleyes:

[JohnStephens91]

The puddle-drinking rat eaters wanted a replay as the cake sale money has been slow this month :agree:

Doubt they would even have the money to buy another ticket after giving all of their dole to Vlad to line his pockets :vladsheep:

[marinello59]

The puddle-drinking rat eaters wanted a replay as the cake sale money has been slow this month :agree:

So a replay behind closed doors then. :greengrin

[Winston Ingram]

I think it's clear he's not served it. Hearts/Ewen Murray claimed that they asked the SFL & got clearance. To me they're unfortunately off the hook and if anything is going to come out of this it will be compensation to ICT:agree:

[AberdreamHibee]

Sending an email to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon :agree:

[hibbiedon]

The real questions are

1/ was Danny Wilson aware he had been sent off

2/ Was Danny Wilson aware that he had not served a suspension

if the answer to the above is yes then they should be kicked out of the competition

[kev1875]

There has been an administrative error made by someone. This is easy to sort. If its hearts fault they are thrown out like Dunfermline, Spartans and east Stirling all have In the past, if its the sfa/spl/sfl at fault then the decision should be a replay.

[Judas Iscariot]

The merricks seem to believe he served his suspension when he was with Liverpool, missing the 1st league game of the season?!

I was under the impression his red card was competetion specific?!

[truehibernian]

I think it's clear he's not served it. Hearts/Ewen Murray claimed that they asked the SFL & got clearance. To me they're unfortunately off the hook and if anything is going to come out of this it will be compensation to ICT:agree:

Can't see that at all - for one, Scottish football is financially 'on it's knees', or so Longmuir and Regan would have you think - compensation would need to factor in ICT potentially winning the competition, TV money, the off shoot money that would come with a cup win, player bonus payments, etc. Do you think the SFL will want to write 2 cheques for around £500K/£1 million pounds, to 2 clubs, for one cup win ?

Then you have the ICT players themselves - do you think any pro footballer wants the chance of silverware taken away from them ? And I include Hearts players too - after all, if they have checked and it's the SFA/SFL at fault, even although it is our rival, it's very harsh on them.

If you look at Wilson's performance on Saturday, he had a direct influence on the result - providing an assist for the equaliser and also getting back on the line to prevent McKay scoring what could have ultimately been the winning goal (did he take a penalty too ?). If it were Hibs, I'd be fighting this all the way to be honest.

But I can envisage an almighty back track and cover up on the cards.

If it's proved he was banned and hasn't served the suspension, a replay is the only option - after all, we bang on about sporting integrity - even good old Vladimir penned an infamous statement about it on their website during the Rangers saga :agree:

If however he's served it, fair play, everyone moves on, hope for a cracking final, and we're all Saints fans for the afternoon :greengrin

[SMAXXA]

Can't see that at all - for one, Scottish football is financially 'on it's knees', or so Longmuir and Regan would have you think - compensation would need to factor in ICT potentially winning the competition, TV money, the off shoot money that would come with a cup win, player bonus payments, etc. Do you think the SFL will want to write 2 cheques for around £500K/£1 million pounds, to 2 clubs, for one cup win ?

Then you have the ICT players themselves - do you think any pro footballer wants the chance of silverware taken away from them ? And I include Hearts players too - after all, if they have checked and it's the SFA/SFL at fault, even although it is our rival, it's very harsh on them.

If you look at Wilson's performance on Saturday, he had a direct influence on the result - providing an assist for the equaliser and also getting back on the line to prevent McKay scoring what could have ultimately been the winning goal (did he take a penalty too ?). If it were Hibs, I'd be fighting this all the way to be honest.

But I can envisage an almighty back track and cover up on the cards.

If it's proved he was banned and hasn't served the suspension, a replay is the only option - after all, we bang on about sporting integrity - even good old Vladimir penned an infamous statement about it on their website during the Rangers saga :agree:

If however he's served it, fair play, everyone moves on, hope for a cracking final, and we're all Saints fans for the afternoon :greengrin

:top marks


:agree:

[Mikey]

So, have they told us when he served his ban yet? It can't be tricky............

"We can confirm that Danny Wilson served his ban on XXXX, against XXXX".

Surely it can't be that difficult?

[truehibernian]

So, have they told us when he served his ban yet? It can't be tricky............

"We can confirm that Danny Wilson served his ban on XXXX, against XXXX".

Surely it can't be that difficult?

Easy now Mikey - we are after all talking about two sporting bodies that drew up change/league restructuring documents, then failed to send them to the all member clubs at the same time, meaning some had the info, some didn't, yet somehow the press had them and certain clubs had been given a 'heads up' before the others and had been 'consulted' - allegedly :agree:

It'll be some poor wee admin lackey that takes the rap - the suits will continue to drag this game of ours into the gutter.

[Ozyhibby]

So, have they told us when he served his ban yet? It can't be tricky............

"We can confirm that Danny Wilson served his ban on XXXX, against XXXX".

Surely it can't be that difficult?

Exactly, if he has served his suspension then there will be paperwork confirming it and it would have been produced by now.

[SMAXXA]

So, have they told us when he served his ban yet? It can't be tricky............

"We can confirm that Danny Wilson served his ban on XXXX, against XXXX".

Surely it can't be that difficult?

I wish they would just put us all out our misery, been fun so far but really need clarity onthis from the beeks.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Still waiting on The Dalai Lama to respond to my e-mail.

[Winston Ingram]

Can't see that at all - for one, Scottish football is financially 'on it's knees', or so Longmuir and Regan would have you think - compensation would need to factor in ICT potentially winning the competition, TV money, the off shoot money that would come with a cup win, player bonus payments, etc. Do you think the SFL will want to write 2 cheques for around £500K/£1 million pounds, to 2 clubs, for one cup win ?

Then you have the ICT players themselves - do you think any pro footballer wants the chance of silverware taken away from them ? And I include Hearts players too - after all, if they have checked and it's the SFA/SFL at fault, even although it is our rival, it's very harsh on them.

If you look at Wilson's performance on Saturday, he had a direct influence on the result - providing an assist for the equaliser and also getting back on the line to prevent McKay scoring what could have ultimately been the winning goal (did he take a penalty too ?). If it were Hibs, I'd be fighting this all the way to be honest.

But I can envisage an almighty back track and cover up on the cards.

If it's proved he was banned and hasn't served the suspension, a replay is the only option - after all, we bang on about sporting integrity - even good old Vladimir penned an infamous statement about it on their website during the Rangers saga :agree:

If however he's served it, fair play, everyone moves on, hope for a cracking final, and we're all Saints fans for the afternoon :greengrin

I'm not saying they'd want to but would they have a choice? If what Ewen Murray is saying that they sought clearance from the relevant authority, got it, then played him how can they be punished? They followed the rule book to the letter. If they then force a replay & Hearts take them to court they won't have a leg to stand on. Similarly with ICT. He had a ban, they knew about the ban, Hearts reminded them about it, the was clear doubt that it had been served yet they didn't check the paper trail to confirm it had been served. If that went to a court then they aren't going to go in favour of the authorities here as it's clear negligence.

Then there is the amount they pay. It's likely to be more than the cup win. As you say they aren't going to want to pay 2 winners but that is the tip of the iceberg.

It's fair to say the financial side of a win is a bonus. For the club it's all about winning a trophy and all that comes with it. The feeling, the pride etc. Then there's the added financial spin offs. Increased ticket sales, merchandise etc.

[easty]

Still waiting on The Dalai Lama to respond to my e-mail.

Claire Balding hasn't got back to me either, that's odd she was quick to respond last time I emailed her.

[kev1875]

The merricks seem to believe he served his suspension when he was with Liverpool, missing the 1st league game of the season?!

I was under the impression his red card was competetion specific?!

He was in the squad. Didn't make the bench but was eligible for the match.

[easty]

He was in the squad. Didn't make the bench but was eligible for the match.

Unless he was on the bench it doesn't matter if he was eligible for the match.

[Ozyhibby]

Claire Balding hasn't got back to me either, that's odd she was quick to respond last time I emailed her.

Same with Jessica Ennis, nothing. Last time I emailed her the Police were round the door pronto. There's a conspiracy of silence here.

[LaMotta]

Claire Balding hasn't got back to me either, that's odd she was quick to respond last time I emailed her.

I've just informed the Queen via a telegram. I'm expecting one back in 63 years.

[Caversham Green]

I'm not saying they'd want to but would they have a choice. If what Ewen Murray is saying that they sought clearance from the relevant authority, got it, then played him how can they be punished. They followed the rule book to the letter. If they then force a replay & Hearts take them to court they won't have a leg to stand on. Similarly with ICT. He had a ban, they knew about the ban, Hearts reminded them about it, the was clear doubt that it had been served yet they didn't check the paper trail to confirm it had been. If that went to a court then they aren't going to go in favour of the authorities here as it's clear negligence.

Then there is the amount they pay. As you say they aren't going to want to pay 2 winners but that is the tip of the iceberg.

It's fair to say the financial side of a win is a bonus. For the club it's all about winning a trophy and all that comes with it. The feeling, the pride etc. Then there's the added financial spin offs. Increased ticket sales, merchandise etc.

If Wilson played while under a suspension then ICT have been unfairly disadvantaged and they have a right for that to be corrected, regardless of who was at fault for the oversight. If HoMFC were not at fault then the result should be void and the match replayed. A replay is not a punishment, it is correcting an invalid result but the one party that is blameless in all this is the one that is suffering most at the moment.