they have been told to replay their fa cup match against scarborough for playing an illigal player- wtf we get banned but ofc we are barnsley
It's nothing to do with "being Barnsley". We aren't getting "picked on" The club didn't appeal so what option did the FA have? Forest Green were also charged with a different offence than we were (dunno if that made it easier to appeal).
Forest green didn't appeal apparently they didn't even tell the FA what they had done like Barnsley did . Please give up protecting the FA and the EFL they are inconsistent at the very best but probably corrupt as well
https://www.youtube.com/live/dTlUVdUqR3M?si=5r3qpI3CVGcQsyI8 41 minutes and 25 seconds in, Neerav says we appealed.
41 minutes and 25 seconds into the fan forum video you will hear it very clear from Neerav's mouth that Barnsley FC appealed to the FA
It appears we deliberately allowed ourselves to be expelled. My understanding is that the FA were extremely surprised as it's 'unheard of'for clubs to neither appeal nor request a personal hearing. BARNSLEY'S OVERSIGHT RAISES EYEBROWS Barnsley’s failure to request a personal hearing after being charged with fielding an ineligible player in their FA Cup first-round replay against Horsham this month raised eyebrows at the FA. The League One club simply admitted the charge in a written response without taking the opportunity to defend themselves in person, and were kicked out of the competition as a result.
As I've said in the other thread, we should have been expelled - but so also should FGR. No offence to them at all, but they played an ineligible player. Both of us should be out of the cup as a result.
I don't really see what an appeal would have done for us. We were in the wrong, simple as that. I've not followed the FGR incident closely, even though it was a different rule, but a very similar rule, I'm not really sure why they had grounds to appeal, and win their appeal?
He says "we appealed our position" at the place you state - then about 30 seconds later says that we didn't see any point in appealing. To me, the "appealed our position" bit is just a turn of phrase. We clearly didn't officially appeal, as we would have seen the results of said appeal positively or negatively.
Yes, I agree that he says "we appealed our position" but then he clearly corrects himself and clarifies 30 seconds later, literally in the same monologue, he explicitly says that we "didn't see any point in appealing" and it's clear from all the stuff in the national press that we didn't appeal. I get that it's confusing as what he says is clear as mud (I actually joked about it in the FA Cup thread) but we definitely haven't *formally* appealed. All we've done is stated our case at the initial point when the error became apparent and then we've compounded it by "not seeing the point" in Neerav's words of the appeal. Which is nearly as daft as when Cryne said "we didn't know how good John Stones was"
What he means is they sent a letter in to answer the charge. There is a big difference in that and appealing. What happens exactly is this: 1. The FA issue a charge and give a player/club a set number of days to reply. In that reply they admit or deny the charge and tick the box choosing which way they want it dealing with - either a paper hearing (where the club does not attend and the panel simply decide on the basis of the letter they sent in) or by ticking the box saying they want a personal hearing ( many of which are now done by zoom so they don't even have to leave the ground). In the latter they can verbally state their case. The panel then decide on penalty. BFC should have asked for the latter personal gearing but they didn't.