MFP
Well-known member
Like Blackburn? At no point were we in contact with them. The first they knew of our intentions was through a report on Sky Sports. It was contemptible behaviour really.
Three points debacle
- Thread starter Mwelolo
- Start date
Michael_Vronsky
Well-known member
MFP
Well-known member
Yes, which is what we did do in regards to Blackburn. They went ahead with preparations for a game that we had no intention of fulfilling and made no effort to correspond with them our situation.
I dare suggest that it our conduct here that aggravated the cause and resulted in the more severe punishment.
I dare suggest that it our conduct here that aggravated the cause and resulted in the more severe punishment.
Michael_Vronsky
Well-known member
MFP
Well-known member
We deserved to be punished. I don't think the three points deduction was necessary though, but I can see why, in an unprecedented scenario, given the way we conducted ourselves, why it was meted out.
And what exactly is it you disagree with? If our behaviour toward Blackburn wasn't contemptible, then what was it?
And what exactly is it you disagree with? If our behaviour toward Blackburn wasn't contemptible, then what was it?
I think the punishment was very harsh but I don’t think that it was just because we were MFC, I don’t think anyone else cares that much about us.
I also think we were the architects of our own downfall, it didn’t need to happen.
If it had been one of our rivals who’d done this and we stood to gain from their folly very few of us would object.
ThePrisoner
Well-known member
Borobuddah
Well-known member
That year the table DID lie.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
The fact it was over seen by the Durham FA would suggest otherwise.
In your mind, perhaps.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
So you don’t think the Durham FA weren’t interested in helping sunderland then.
How were they neutral.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
They broke 2 rules twice with 2 players and then lied about it and still didn’t get a pts deduction.
!
MFP
Well-known member
You're ignoring the decision made by the other members of the appeal board and insisting not only bias at play from Pattison, but that his decision was the only one that counted.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
From Steve Gibson
In the week prior to the commission Mr Castle, the Clubs Company Secretary, made several requests to Mr Foster asking for details of the Premier League case reciprocating the information we had previously supplied. This was denied to us. Furthermore, we received no indication from Mr Foster that Blackburn Rovers would have prominent legal representation at the Commission and at no time were we made aware of correspondence between Mr Foster and Blackburn Rovers. So concerned was Mr Castle with the lack of co-operation from Mr Foster that at 1030 on the 13th January 1997 a fax was sent to Mr Foster asking for an adjournment of the Commission and also expressing our deep concerns.
“I am concerned sufficiently to write to you now to express the reservations of this club in relation to the conduct of tomorrow’s Commission.
Firstly, I am concerned that we have not seen any statements or details of the evidence that you intend to bring by way of your submissions. We, on the other hand, forwarded statements and supporting documents to you last week. You will have had several days to digest our submissions but even if we receive yours today we shall have little opportunity to determine whether we require other witnesses and supporting evidence to help our case, or whether we require the advice of Leading Counsel.
The rules of natural justice demand that a party should know the case to be submitted and have an equal opportunity to address the issues put forward once all the facts are known.
In the week prior to the commission Mr Castle, the Clubs Company Secretary, made several requests to Mr Foster asking for details of the Premier League case reciprocating the information we had previously supplied. This was denied to us. Furthermore, we received no indication from Mr Foster that Blackburn Rovers would have prominent legal representation at the Commission and at no time were we made aware of correspondence between Mr Foster and Blackburn Rovers. So concerned was Mr Castle with the lack of co-operation from Mr Foster that at 1030 on the 13th January 1997 a fax was sent to Mr Foster asking for an adjournment of the Commission and also expressing our deep concerns.
“I am concerned sufficiently to write to you now to express the reservations of this club in relation to the conduct of tomorrow’s Commission.
Firstly, I am concerned that we have not seen any statements or details of the evidence that you intend to bring by way of your submissions. We, on the other hand, forwarded statements and supporting documents to you last week. You will have had several days to digest our submissions but even if we receive yours today we shall have little opportunity to determine whether we require other witnesses and supporting evidence to help our case, or whether we require the advice of Leading Counsel.
The rules of natural justice demand that a party should know the case to be submitted and have an equal opportunity to address the issues put forward once all the facts are known.
