Flure Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Tyrone Smith @TyroneSTV Peterhead have also been fined 10,000 and censured. Reece Donaldson (the player in question) will be suspended for the rearranged game. Ordered to replay V Ayr Utd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jailender Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 So have Livi and a 5 point deduction for not paying tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 This is a joke. So all teams need to do if they are losing is field an ineligible player and they will get a replay. Doncaster really doesn't know wtf he is doing. This all stems from the rangers business. They chose to fine them instead of imposing the correct punishment. They are now in a hole with this one. Farcical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 This is a joke. So all teams need to do if they are losing is field an ineligible player and they will get a replay. Doncaster really doesn't know wtf he is doing. This all stems from the rangers business. They chose to fine them instead of imposing the correct punishment. They are now in a hole with this one. Farcical. I don't think that's actually possible. What was the score from the first game BTW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jailender Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Peterhead won 3-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenAngus Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 This is a joke. So all teams need to do if they are losing is field an ineligible player and they will get a replay. Doncaster really doesn't know wtf he is doing. This all stems from the rangers business. They chose to fine them instead of imposing the correct punishment. They are now in a hole with this one. Farcical. I can't see why Ayr don't get a 3-0 win awarded. Not sure it will have Doncaster's decision alone as much as I'd like to blame him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Typical anti-NE agenda from the Glasgow FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adonisfaelivi Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 So have Livi and a 5 point deduction for not paying tax. Before you all start giving us a kicking, the failure was down to one former discredited Director and was owned up to when it was discovered. Although why it always seems to be us that get landed with arshole owners ?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenAngus Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Before you all start giving us a kicking, the failure was down to one former discredited Director and was owned up to when it was discovered. Although why it always seems to be us that get landed with arshole owners ?????? I don't think you alone though I'll let fans of other teams tell you themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 Part of that Peterhead £10k is suspended (BBC Radio Scotland didn't say how much). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLAS Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Part of that Peterhead £10k is suspended (BBC Radio Scotland didn't say how much). Peterhead have a wee bit of cash, but £10k is a lot of money to the majority of teams in Scotland. Even more so those in the lower leagues. Christmas bonus is sorted at SFA towers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wigtownshire-Matt Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 £10000 seems very excessive. Bit of a nightmare for Ayr having to travel up there again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) £10000 seems very excessive. Bit of a nightmare for Ayr having to travel up there again.Having to go to Peterhead is a bit of a nightmare for anyone. Grimmest place in Scotland. Edited November 25, 2014 by Charlie Endell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macy37 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Having to go to Peterhead is a bit of a nightmare for anyone. Grimmest place in Scotland. Agreed. On a par with Methil though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Agreed. On a par with Methil though.At least with Methil you're not as far from civilization - and I don't mean Kirkcaldy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 £10000 seems very excessive. Bit of a nightmare for Ayr having to travel up there again. Who will cover Ayr's expenses? I assume that they travelled up there and played the game within the rules. Why should they be financially penalised for Peterhead's error? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilScotsman Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Peterhead won 3-2 I don't think Ayr want a replay - that's a better result than we'll get at the moment, the way we're playing by all accounts.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dipped flake Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 This is a joke. So all teams need to do if they are losing is field an ineligible player and they will get a replay. Doncaster really doesn't know wtf he is doing. This all stems from the rangers business. They chose to fine them instead of imposing the correct punishment. They are now in a hole with this one. Farcical. they got a replay as they won the first game. If they had lost it the result would have stood. Agree with someone else though, can't see why it wasn't awarded as a 3-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 they got a replay as they won the first game. If they had lost it the result would have stood. Agree with someone else though, can't see why it wasn't awarded as a 3-0 no exactly my point. so where is the punishment for fielding an I eligible player? it should be a forfeit. but as I say the sfa have backed themselves into a hole with previous rulings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 TV camera's at Livingston stadium this morning. Wonder if there is a sacking in the offing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dipped flake Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 no exactly my point. so where is the punishment for fielding an I eligible player? it should be a forfeit. but as I say the sfa have backed themselves into a hole with previous rulings. I agree with you although the punishment that the SFA/SPFL? would say is they lose the 3 points and have to play again. It should definitely be awarded as a 3-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoltanBuchan Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Part of that Peterhead £10k is suspended (BBC Radio Scotland didn't say how much). 7k Bit of a nightmare for Ayr having to travel up there again. Who will cover Ayr's expenses? I assume that they travelled up there and played the game within the rules. Why should they be financially penalised for Peterhead's error? It was a ing home game for Ayr!!!! Also Peterhead's lovely this time of year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoltanBuchan Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Peterhead claim they had telephone confirmation that the player in question was eligible; indeed, they had contacted the SFA to specifically check that he could play. The SFA, apparently, have no record of the alleged conversation. So...either Peterhead are outright lying...or the SFA have been incompetent, both by giving the club the wrong information, and by having no record of the conversation. Which, do we think, is the more likely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jailender Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Surely not an SFA cock up ! You would have thought that Peterhead would have had confirmation by email to be on the safe side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandydunn Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Also Peterhead's lovely this time of year I agree wholeheartedly. It's dark,you canna see a f vcking thing of that hole Edited November 25, 2014 by dandydunn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.