Stanley Safe - Page 2

ossy kid · 22-04-2014, 15:30

Nobody asked you to type anything, we can all count and know the odds. You're entitled to your opinion, mine is, we,re safe.

Redraine · 22-04-2014, 17:19

Yes, but some of us get scrambled brains without someone to help us to work it out!

choirboy · 22-04-2014, 18:10

Guys..........

We will only be fully "SAFE" when TWO teams cannot possibly catch us!

Until then I am continuing to feel quite nervous!!!!

I was relieved that most of the reults in the bottom third of the league went 'for us' on monday...

Still all to play for in my opinion.

COME ON YOU REDS

AccyMad · 22-04-2014, 19:17

There could be another twist to this, Wimbledon have been charged with fielding an ineligible player in their win against Cheltenham & could receive a points deduction.

DAV007 · 22-04-2014, 19:31

What is the normal reduction?
3 points and fine?
10 points?

Exile on Spencer St · 23-04-2014, 06:16

It would have to be a deduction of ten points to put the Wombles in danger. Seem to recall Stanley faced this problem during the reign of Professor Coleman, but can't recall the outcome, assuming I'm remembering correctly?

smobile · 23-04-2014, 06:52

12 Grand fine (half of that suspended) and that was for TWO players.

BBC SPORT | Football | My Club | Accrington Stanley | Accrington avoid points deduction

Lost in Cornwall · 23-04-2014, 09:56

Normal punishment is a fine and any points gained from the matches in which the ineligible player played deducted. However, a Premier League Club (Sunderland I think) have avoided the points deduction this season on the grounds that it was a misunderstanding over international clearance so depends on why he was ineligible and the stance the Football League take.

Exile on Spencer St · 23-04-2014, 10:05

Could be the same "international" excuse as I believe the lad came from a Scottish team.

AccyMad · 23-04-2014, 14:15

I read that the lad had played in two games after the Cheltenham one so IF the FA are consistent it would be a nine point deduction - probably not enough to put them in direct danger but maybe enough to make them a tad nervous

cashman · 23-04-2014, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by AccyMad

I read that the lad had played in two games after the Cheltenham one so IF the FA are consistent it would be a nine point deduction - probably not enough to put them in direct danger but maybe enough to make them a tad nervous

How do yeh get that conclusion if it was 9pts Di?

Sure they got 56 pts?? so 9 off that would be direct danger?? unless i'm missing summat?

Chimer · 23-04-2014, 15:41

If AccyMad's right, they only got 4 points in those 3 games, so surely wouldn't be deducted more than that?

Then again, this is football administration we're talking about so anything could happen!

ianray · 23-04-2014, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

Ianray reckons we are safe.
If it's good enough for ian, its good enough for me

hey DAV007 I've never commented yet unless i have in my sleep

cashman · 23-04-2014, 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianray

hey DAV007 I've never commented yet unless i have in my sleep

Hes got a vivid imagination, its were he comes from. He also tried to vote fer yeh in player of the season.

AccyMad · 23-04-2014, 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

How do yeh get that conclusion if it was 9pts Di?

Sure they got 56 pts?? so 9 off that would be direct danger?? unless i'm missing summat?

Sorry if I confused you Cashy, wasn't sure how many points the wombles had amassed & like someone else has said if they do get a points deduction it might just be how many they gained in the three games the lad played in - we'll just have to wait & see, think their hearing is on 28th April