Ray Putterill & Stanley in trouble? - Page 4

shakermaker · 08-09-2010, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by BedsRed

Sorry Shaker, but putting my referees hat on now there are so many things wrong with that post that I don't know where to begin.

Irrespective of whether the signature on the report form is a forgery, and I think that people need to be very careful before making such an allegation, if the player committed the offence and had been punishes by the FA, the ban stands.

Stop right there hombre. Are you on some kind of hallucinogen? Where did I say anything about a forgery?!

All I've said is it seems ridiculous to me that an innocuous incident in the pub leagues resulting in a ban should take effect in the Football League. This is only made more ridiculous by the fact (and I shall take it as a fact until proved otherwise) that our club didn't know Ray had even played for another club between the time he left Liverpool and joined Stanley, let alone incurred a ban from the game.

BedsRed · 08-09-2010, 18:54

Sorry for the confusion, shaker. Having re-read my post, I can see why you'd think I said that in response to you, and as for the halloucinogens, never had them and if I had I'd have exhausted the supply in the Tony Greenwood years, trying to convince myself that the team weren't crap.

I was trying to respond to football19 as well. Presumably the Winnard family have seen a copy of the report.

Even at county level, a 42 day ban will not have been something innocuous. A player who is banned should be banned from all football. As I say, moving clubs shouldn't exempt you from punishment. And if he planned on returning to the pro gmae, there's all the more reason to behave himself, knowing the consequences.

The club are largely innocent in this, but will have to be punished in order to prevent any loopholes being created for others.

I'm not angry at the Liverpool FA for the ban. They're doing their job.
I'm not angry at the FA for ensuring that it is applied.
I'm not even angry with the club, who probably would never have assumed that one if their players would have been playing in the second tier ofthe Liverpool Combination, rift steps below the football league and could, perhaps be forgiven for not checking with the County FA.
I'm very angry with a player who can behave in such a way that this ban has been necessary and from what Rob Heys says, lie to the club and think he'd get away with it.

Of course, he wouldn't be the first player from that part if te world to be less than honest in his dealings with the club...

shakermaker · 08-09-2010, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by BedsRed

The club are largely innocent in this, but will have to be punished in order to prevent any loopholes being created for others.

I can't agree with the ban having the same resonance on all tiers, but we can agree here. The club, in my eyes, is indeed 'largely innocent in this' matter. Jeff's hindsight 20/20 argument is unfair, in my opinion. This matter is only similar to the Chris McGrail incident in the name of the charge from the FA. Obviously we can learn from this event in the future, but there was no precedent for the sheer amount of bad luck that resulted in this charge.

Until we hear The Player With The Oldest Name In Football's side of the argument, I think it's harsh to presume there was any attempted cover up by the player. Perhaps he's rather innocently (albeit foolishly) presumed that the county FA disciplinary matter wouldn't hamper his professional career, shrugged it off and forgotten about it.

I accept that some (such as I, admittedly) would like to think that our players are good as gold, and I totally understand that for others, recent years have seen pitchside relationships challenged to the hilt. If the ban is upheld, then he'll have to take it like a man and return from the wilderness along with our favourite white haired half naked man towards the end of the year. But let's not shoot the lad or the club down before we know the full story, eh.

cashman · 08-09-2010, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

But let's not shoot the lad or the club down before we know the full story, eh.

Bang on the nail shaker, think i said summat similar earlier in thread. its a odd thing this un.

DAV007 · 08-09-2010, 20:34

to gain a 42 day ban must have required some serious dissent.
more information needed before making a judgement.

Tealeaf · 08-09-2010, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

to gain a 42 day ban must have required some serious dissent.
more information needed before making a judgement.

Err...it's 42 days + 7days - which suggests a second offence. But I may be wrong. I may also be wrong in stating that the phrase 'due diligence' has not so far appeared in this thread. It seems to me that irrespective of the layers of bureacracy within the English & local FA's and leagues, it would not have involved more than a few simple phone calls or emails to establish Mr Putterills clean sheet or otherwise credentials prior to his signing. Something here has gone badly amiss.

sparkie · 08-09-2010, 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

to gain a 42 day ban must have required some serious dissent.
more information needed before making a judgement.

In the lancashire womens league the standard ban for a red card was 35 days, no matter what the offence. Extra time can be added on dependant on the severity of the matter. One of the girls that played for stanely the year before last got a 42 day ban for getting 2 yellows in a game one for a late challenge and the other for advising a fellow player not to give the ref there name when he wanted to book them. She had 7 days extra added on for it being referee directed dissent, even thought at no point was there any foul langauge or abuse!!! Funny things suspensions at lower league level!!

I was also previously in a team where one of the players was given a 67 day ban for foul and abusive language which supposedly included racially aggrevated words directed towards a match official (I was stood close to the girl at the time and I heard nothing racist but that was the charge!). She contested this but as she had no sound recording of the incident, the fa dismissed her protest at the ban and she was forced to sit out the final 2 and a half months of the season. I'm not quite sure where she was supposed to put an on record dictaphone about her person whilst playing football, any ideas?!!! Ridiculous!!

cashman · 08-09-2010, 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Err...it's 42 days + 7days - which suggests a second offence. But I may be wrong. I may also be wrong in stating that the phrase 'due diligence' has not so far appeared in this thread. It seems to me that irrespective of the layers of bureacracy within the English & local FA's and leagues, it would not have involved more than a few simple phone calls or emails to establish Mr Putterills clean sheet or otherwise credentials prior to his signing. Something here has gone badly amiss.

summat has gone badly amiss i agree, but where the fault lies is uncertain to me, could be a matter of the lower league/club/ whoever, not passing info, hard to check if new club had no idea he played yon. its a mess, but who's to blame will only come to light in time.IMHO. surely ya can only check on the club info ya have?

Tealeaf · 08-09-2010, 22:17

There was a report out today, in a somewhat different spere and that was the report into the Mexican Gulf blowout. What has that got to do with Stanley, you may say? Nowt - other than the principle of company responsibility. Just as it now appears that BP management and operatives were only partly responsible for the events leading up to the blowout, nevertheless the company has to take full responsibility.

The same principle applies now with Stanley; we have to take the hit. We may at some point be able to obtain retribution from other parties, although I somehow doubt it. I don't think Halewood FC or Mr Potterill himself would be suitable cases for legal and financial redress. What is important is that a lesson should be learnt. However, I doubt very much that it will be; it is not the first time that something like this has happened and it is unlikely to be the last.

The real problem lies with the governing authority, the FA which taken with it's various offshoots, has the collective intelligence of a fruitfly. A system of player passports linked to a simple database, using smartcards and costing very little is all that is needed. Unfortunately, that will not arise in the forseeable future because the buck for any cock-ups would then pass to them.

Grimps · 08-09-2010, 22:26

ive got a ban for nutting a player years a go 84 days plus . kick out the team

Tealeaf · 08-09-2010, 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimps

ive got a ban for nutting a player years a go 84 days plus . kick out the team

You'd better keep quiet about that if you want to play for Stanley.

Wynonie Harris · 09-09-2010, 08:23

Macc fans are now starting to speculate about getting their three points back.

Macclesfield Town - Accy Charged - Will Macc Get Points Back?

Seems a bit bizarre to be described as their "richer cousins"!

VALAIRIAN · 09-09-2010, 08:52

Macca scores a hat-trick, yet it was Razor who ran the show, sounds desperate to me.........

Wynonie Harris · 09-09-2010, 08:55

Just realised, his ban started on August 30th and the Macc match was nine days before, so pull 'em up, poorboys!

cashman · 09-09-2010, 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Just realised, his ban started on August 30th and the Macc match was nine days before, so pull 'em up, poorboys!

can understand the desperation of the macc fans, crap side - odds on conference bound, any port in a storm.