FAs reasons for charging Enfield

[margateshot]

Taken from the FA's website

 

THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION REGULATORY COMMISSION
IN RESPECT OF 2 BREACHES OF FA RULE E10
COMMITTED BY ENFIELD TOWN FC
Introduction
1.  These are the written reasons for  the  Regulatory Commission  decision  made on Wednesday
22
nd
April 2015.
2.  The  Regulatory  Commission  members  were  Major  (Retd)  W  Thomson  (Chairman),  Mr  S
Turner and Mr D Rose.
3.  Mr Robert Marsh, Judicial Services Manager of the Football Association, acted as Secretary to
the Hearing.
4.  The Commission was considering a charge raised by The FA for two breaches of FA Rule E10
in that  it is alleged that Enfield Town FC failed to comply with an FA suspension in that Aryan
Tajbakhsh  participated  in  the  following  first  team  fixtures  between  3  January  2015  and  17
January 2015:
Enfield Town FC v Hendon FC
Isthmian Premier League
10 January 2015
Tonbridge Angels FC v Enfield Town FC
Isthmian Premier League
17 January 2015
5.  Mr Dario Giovannelli represented The Football Association (FA).
6.  Enfield Town FC had denied the charges and requested a personal hearing.
Details
7.  Mr Giovannelli  introduced the case against  Enfield Town FC and the Commission was  referred
to  FA Rule  E10  which reads  “Each Participant shall comply with a decision made pursuant to
the Rules and regulations of the Association”.  
8.  Mr Giovannelli  went on  to explain that Enfield Town  FC  had breached FA Rule E10 on two
separate occasions, against Hendon FC on the 10
th
January and against Tonbridge Angels on
the 17
th
January 2015.
9.  Mr  Giovannelli  acknowledged  that  there  had  been  three  separate  records  created  for  Aryan
Tajbakhsh  and it required a human hand to join all three records.  He had also no dispute with
the  evidence  produced  by  Enfield  Town  FC.  However,  it  was  a  matter  of  fact  that  Aryan
Tajbakhsh  had received 10 cautions and directed the  Commission to the FA Handbook, page
390 Cautions Offences Section D paragraph 3. Mr Giovannelli  in his submission, also directed
the  Commission  to  page  397  paragraph  11(a)  sub  paragraph  4  of  the  FA  Handbook.  Mr
Giovannelli also  stated  that Enfield Town had made no contact with the Football Association
(FA) until the 26
th
January 2015.
10. Enfield  Town  FC  was  represented  by  Mr  P  Reed  (Chairman)  and  Mr  P  Millington  (Vice
Chairman).
11. The  defence of Enfield Town  was that  they had made  all  the  necessary enquiries to ensure
Aryan Tajbakhsh was eligible to play for Enfield Town FC. None of the ten cautions involved in
this case occurred whilst  Aryan Tajbakhsh  was a registered player with Enfield Town FC. As
such the club would not have had immediate access to the player’s caution history and the club
submitted that it  had made all  the  necessary enquiries of both player and database to check
the  position  before  playing  him  in  the  games  versus  Hendon  and  Tonbridge  Angels.
Furthermore on receiving the 10
th
caution of the season prior to joining Enfield Town FC, the
standard procedure is for the FA to issue a notification of suspension and notification of a £20
fine. In  the case of Aryan Tajbakhsh,  it was submitted that  this was not received by  the  club or
the player.
12. The club called Dr N Howard (Secretary)  to give evidence on behalf of the club.  Dr Howard
stated  that  upon  signing  the  registration  form  the  match  secretary  Mr  Keith  Wortley  asked
Aryan  Tajbakhsh  questions  regarding  international  clearance  and  whether  the  player  was
suspended. The player said he  was not under suspension but had been told to miss a match
earlier in the season for five bookings and also for a sending off. As he had received a number
of cautions he was also asked about how many he had received, the player said that he was
not sure as his former clubs had not told him, but he believed it to be around eight or nine.
13. Dr  Howard  went  on  to  say  that  on  receiving  that  information  from  the  match  secretary,
regarding the uncertainty of how many bookings  Aryan Tajbakhsh  had received, he  undertook
a  search of the suspension checker on the County FA’s website.  The player,  Aryan Tajbakhsh
DOB  27/10/1990,  did  not  appear  on  the  list.   As  a  result  of  his  enquiries  the  player  played
against  Hendon  FC  on  the  10
th
January  and  against  Tonbridge  Angels  on  the  17
th
January
2015.
14. Dr Howard went  on  to explain that as a result of  Aryan Tajbakhsh  receiving a caution in the
game versus Maidstone United on the 24
th
January 2015, whilst dealing with the administration
he had observed a discrepancy against Aryan Tajbakhsh.  Dr Howard explained that given this
discrepancy he immediately contacted the FA to rectify this.
15.  On contacting the FA Dr Howard stated that a reply from Jill Roberts of the FA asked if  Aryan
Tajbakhsh  was  the same player that had  played for Cheshunt VCD and Enfield  Town FC. An
attachment  showed  a  number  of  cautions,  which  highlighted  Aryan  Tajbakhsh  should  have
served a two match suspension starting on the 3
rd
January 2015.
16. Dr Howard went on to say following a conversation with  Jill Roberts  that Aryan Tajbakhsh  was
omitted  from  the  game  versus  Dulwich  Hamlet  FC.  The  club  submitted  that  a  further
conversation also took place between the Manager of Enfield Town FC and Mark Ives of the
FA  Disciplinary  department  and  as  a  result  of  this  conversation  Aryan  Tajbakhsh  was  also
omitted from the game versus the Metropolitan Police.  This game would  clear the outstanding
two match suspension.
17. Dr  Howard  was  then  asked  by  the  members  of  the  Commission,  knowing  that  he  knew  the
player had a number of cautions which database had he checked, to which he replied he was
unsure.
18. Dr Howard went on to say  that he believed the club had acted in good faith,  by immediately
seeking to establish the player’s  disciplinary record  by checking the database. He said that the
incorrect recording of the player’s details which led to this situation was  not  made by his  club
and  was  therefore  outside  the  control  of  Enfield  Town  FC.   The  club  had  also  immediately
contacted the FA when  the Secretary had noticed that the player only had one caution  on his
record  following the game on the 24
th
and  subsequently  acted on the advice of the FA not to
play the player in the next two games once the club had been informed of the suspension.
19. Enfield  Town  FC  then  called  Aryan  Tajbakhsh  to  give  evidence  which  was  conducted  by
telephone.  Aryan Tajbakhsh  stated  that he informed  Mr. Wortley that  to his knowledge he was
not suspended and had around eight to nine cautions.  He had been suspended twice during
the current season, one of which was for accumulating five cautions.
20. Mr Tajbakhsh went on to say that at no point had he received any notification from any of his
previous clubs or the FA that he was suspended for reaching ten cautions. He also said that
because his suspensions did not appear on the website’s suspension checker, neither himself
nor his club could have been reasonably expected to know he was suspended.
21. Mr  Tajbakhsh  also  stated  that  having  been  made  aware  of  his  suspension,  he  immediately
served those matches, still having had no formal notification and he believed this demonstrated
that both Enfield Town and himself had acted with the best of intentions at all times.
22. Further  evidence  was  produced  by  Enfield  Town  FC,  in  the  form  of  an  e-mail  from  Ben
Marshall of the FA to the Isthmian League. The content of the email had indicated that the FA
were  only  opening  an  investigation  case  against  the  player  for  playing  whilst  suspended  for
Enfield Town FC but were not intending on taking any further action in relation to the club.
23. Enfield  Town  FC  also  submitted  that  Mr  Mark  Ives  of  the  FA  Disciplinary  department  had
relayed  orally  that  same message that  no charges would be raised  against Enfield  Town  FC
regarding this matter.
24. Mr Giovannelli  did not challenge that submission from the Club but stated that  only the Chief
Regulatory Officer or his nominee(s) could make such a decision on charging.
25. Although the club did not  raise the argument Mr. Giovannelli explained that the assurances  not
to charge  may be capable of acting in the interest of the defence analogous  to an estoppel of
some form but  the club would need to demonstrate that it had suffered some kind of detriment
having relied on those assurances. The club submitted that during their most recent match the
manager had chosen to play for the draw as opposed to the win as they were under the belief
that they would not be charged. The example given by the club occurred after they had been
charged by The FA and therefore any action they took during that match was in the knowledge
that a charge had been raised and a points deduction may follow from the league  under their
rules  if the charge was  found proven. The Commission was  not satisfied on the submissions
made by the Club that they had presented enough evidence to demonstrate an argument in
their defence analogous to an estoppel.
26. Enfield Town  FC  also produced  in evidence  a Sport  Resolution  document in regard to  a  FA
Rule K Arbitration involving Thurrock Football Club, the FA and the Isthmian League.
27. Enfield  Town FC further argued that E10 in law cannot apply. The  Commission did not agree
with this submission. The Club further submitted that they were victims to the internal systems
of the FA and if the case was proven, this would be detrimental to the Club. They had not tried
to hide anything; in fact if they had not brought the matter  to the attention of the FA  then it may
have gone unnoticed.
Determination
28. The Commission had sympathy with Enfield Town  FC  but  Enfield Town FC  were informed by
the  player,  Aryan  Tajbakhsh,  that  he  had  received  a  number  of  cautions  (eight  or  nine
according  to  his  evidence)  and  had  even  been  suspended  during  the  course  of  the  current
season for reaching five cautions. This should have given Enfield Town FC cause to check the
definitive position in respect of the player’s caution tally and eligibility with the Association. No
contact  was  made  with  the  Association  until  the  26
th
January  after  the  player  had  already
completed the two fixtures for the club.
29. There  is  some  confusion  with  the  Club  Secretary  as  to  whether  he  had  checked  only  the
suspension checker available on the County FA website or whether he had also checked the
Member Services database. If he had checked the latter then alarm bells should have rang
when that database would have shown the player to have had no cautions when the Club had
been told  by the player that  there would be eight or nine.  By checking only the former that
would only flag players who were currently under suspension assuming duplicate records did
not exist and would not inform the club of the total number of cautions a player had received.
30. Although it is not the fault of Enfield Town FC that duplicate records had been created for the
player, the origin of such duplicate records is unknown, but the rule which the Club are alleged
to have breached is in effect one of strict liability. The Club, in playing a suspended player had
breached  FA  Rule  E10  which  states  “Each  Participant  shall  comply  with  a  decision  made
pursuant to the Rule and regulations of the Association”.
31. The player had reached 10 cautions and he should have been suspended for the two fixtures in
which he played on the 10
th
and 17
th
of January which was agreed by both parties. A  decision
had  been  made  by  the  Association  pursuant  to  Regulation  11(a)(iv)  of  the  Disciplinary
Procedures  which  apply  which  states  that  “If  a  Player  accumulates  ten  cautions  in  any
Competition between the opening day of the Playing Season and the second Sunday of April in
the same Season, he will be suspended automatically for a period covering:  -  Two First Team
matches plus a fine of £20”. Such a suspension came into immediate effect and in accordance
with  Regulation  3  of  the  Disciplinary  Procedures  which  apply  the  punishment  takes  effect
“…regardless of whether or not the notification of it from The Association is received before it is
due to take effect…”.
32. The  Commission  could  not  be  certain  if  assurances  had  been  provided  to  the  Club  without
hearing  from Mr. Ives although even if such had been provided to the  club  the Commission do
not believe that to have a nullifying effect on the charge.
33. Having  given  consideration  to  all  the  evidence  presented  and  the  Rules  as  they  stand  the
Commission  found  the  charge  against  Enfield  Town  FC  of  two  breaches  of  FA  Rule  E10
proven.
Sanction
34. The  Commission  noted  that  the  club  had  no  previous  record  of  similar  misconduct  and
considered the mitigation submitted on behalf of the club. Mr. Giovannelli on behalf of The  FA
submitted that the sanction on the club should be no more than a warning as to their future
conduct.
35. The  Commission  considered  the  fact  that  the  Club  had  felt  that  it  had  done  all  it  could  to
ascertain whether the player was suspended before playing him. The Commission note that
the Club had made some checks although it had stopped short of directly cont acting the FA to
ascertain whether the player was eligible to participate or as to his accurate caution total.    In
fact when the club did contact the FA on the 26
th
January the FA identified the other records for
the player, therefore, if such contact had  been made before the 10
th
January it is likely that the
player’s suspension would have been identified.  The Commission would have expected a Club
to have conducted better research into the player’s caution total once the player had confirmed
he was unsure  whether his total was eight  or nine cautions for the season, a number which
takes  him  close to the suspension  threshold  and  one  that  a  club  would  presumably  want  to
monitor.
36. We further considered that none of the offending cautions had occurred whilst at  Enfield Town
FC and that the duplicate records on the system were not the fault of Enfield Town FC.  The
first duplicate record was created as a result of the incorrect spelling of the player’s name and
the second due to an incorrect date of birth. The  origin of these duplicate records  is unknown
and they may have been created when the player was registered by previous clubs or reported
for misconduct by match officials, in any event it was not Enfield Town FC who had created
them.
37. Having  considered  all  of  the  evidence  provided,  the  mitigation  presented  and  the
circumstances of the case the Commission  Members  were unanimous in ordering that Enfield
Town FC be only warned as to their future conduct.
38. The personal hearing fee was ordered to be retained  but the Commission did not order any
costs against either party.
39. There is a right of appeal against this decision.
Major W Thomson                  24
th
April 2015
Chairman

[Jab_n17]

the reasons maybe or maybe be not true or factual regarding Enfield, but what a bloody balls up by whoever is involved in dealing with this......

[Big J R]

the reasons maybe or maybe be not true or factual regarding Enfield, but what a bloody balls up by whoever is involved in dealing with this......

 

 

I think we all know who that is !!

[Jab_n17]

I think we all know who that is !!

 

oh yes defo.....blaming others and passing the buck comes to mind 

[Chris1]

What a muck up. With a capital F.

 

 

It's hard to see what Enfield Town have done wrong, but plainly obvious how it has been mishandled by the authorities.

 

It is totally stupid to have come to this, affecting 5 clubs (including Met Police), who have players out of contract and going on holiday. Not to mention all the fans, who the league and FA don't seem to give a toss about.

[Mr Dacorum]

Taken from the FA's website

 

THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION REGULATORY COMMISSION

IN RESPECT OF 2 BREACHES OF FA RULE E10

COMMITTED BY ENFIELD TOWN FC

Introduction

1.  These are the written reasons for  the  Regulatory Commission  decision  made on Wednesday

22

nd

April 2015.

2.  The  Regulatory  Commission  members  were  Major  (Retd)  W  Thomson  (Chairman),  Mr  S

Turner and Mr D Rose.

3.  Mr Robert Marsh, Judicial Services Manager of the Football Association, acted as Secretary to

the Hearing.

4.  The Commission was considering a charge raised by The FA for two breaches of FA Rule E10

in that  it is alleged that Enfield Town FC failed to comply with an FA suspension in that Aryan

Tajbakhsh  participated  in  the  following  first  team  fixtures  between  3  January  2015  and  17

January 2015:

Enfield Town FC v Hendon FC

Isthmian Premier League

10 January 2015

Tonbridge Angels FC v Enfield Town FC

Isthmian Premier League

17 January 2015

5.  Mr Dario Giovannelli represented The Football Association (FA).

6.  Enfield Town FC had denied the charges and requested a personal hearing.

Details

7.  Mr Giovannelli  introduced the case against  Enfield Town FC and the Commission was  referred

to  FA Rule  E10  which reads  “Each Participant shall comply with a decision made pursuant to

the Rules and regulations of the Association”.  

8.  Mr Giovannelli  went on  to explain that Enfield Town  FC  had breached FA Rule E10 on two

separate occasions, against Hendon FC on the 10

th

January and against Tonbridge Angels on

the 17

th

January 2015.

9.  Mr  Giovannelli  acknowledged  that  there  had  been  three  separate  records  created  for  Aryan

Tajbakhsh  and it required a human hand to join all three records.  He had also no dispute with

the  evidence  produced  by  Enfield  Town  FC.  However,  it  was  a  matter  of  fact  that  Aryan

Tajbakhsh  had received 10 cautions and directed the  Commission to the FA Handbook, page

390 Cautions Offences Section D paragraph 3. Mr Giovannelli  in his submission, also directed

the  Commission  to  page  397  paragraph  11(a)  sub  paragraph  4  of  the  FA  Handbook.  Mr

Giovannelli also  stated  that Enfield Town had made no contact with the Football Association

(FA) until the 26

th

January 2015.

10. Enfield  Town  FC  was  represented  by  Mr  P  Reed  (Chairman)  and  Mr  P  Millington  (Vice

Chairman).

11. The  defence of Enfield Town  was that  they had made  all  the  necessary enquiries to ensure

Aryan Tajbakhsh was eligible to play for Enfield Town FC. None of the ten cautions involved in

this case occurred whilst  Aryan Tajbakhsh  was a registered player with Enfield Town FC. As

such the club would not have had immediate access to the player’s caution history and the club

submitted that it  had made all  the  necessary enquiries of both player and database to check

the  position  before  playing  him  in  the  games  versus  Hendon  and  Tonbridge  Angels.

Furthermore on receiving the 10

th

caution of the season prior to joining Enfield Town FC, the

standard procedure is for the FA to issue a notification of suspension and notification of a £20

fine. In  the case of Aryan Tajbakhsh,  it was submitted that  this was not received by  the  club or

the player.

12. The club called Dr N Howard (Secretary)  to give evidence on behalf of the club.  Dr Howard

stated  that  upon  signing  the  registration  form  the  match  secretary  Mr  Keith  Wortley  asked

Aryan  Tajbakhsh  questions  regarding  international  clearance  and  whether  the  player  was

suspended. The player said he  was not under suspension but had been told to miss a match

earlier in the season for five bookings and also for a sending off. As he had received a number

of cautions he was also asked about how many he had received, the player said that he was

not sure as his former clubs had not told him, but he believed it to be around eight or nine.

13. Dr  Howard  went  on  to  say  that  on  receiving  that  information  from  the  match  secretary,

regarding the uncertainty of how many bookings  Aryan Tajbakhsh  had received, he  undertook

a  search of the suspension checker on the County FA’s website.  The player,  Aryan Tajbakhsh

DOB  27/10/1990,  did  not  appear  on  the  list.   As  a  result  of  his  enquiries  the  player  played

against  Hendon  FC  on  the  10

th

January  and  against  Tonbridge  Angels  on  the  17

th

January

2015.

14. Dr Howard went  on  to explain that as a result of  Aryan Tajbakhsh  receiving a caution in the

game versus Maidstone United on the 24

th

January 2015, whilst dealing with the administration

he had observed a discrepancy against Aryan Tajbakhsh.  Dr Howard explained that given this

discrepancy he immediately contacted the FA to rectify this.

15.  On contacting the FA Dr Howard stated that a reply from Jill Roberts of the FA asked if  Aryan

Tajbakhsh  was  the same player that had  played for Cheshunt VCD and Enfield  Town FC. An

attachment  showed  a  number  of  cautions,  which  highlighted  Aryan  Tajbakhsh  should  have

served a two match suspension starting on the 3

rd

January 2015.

16. Dr Howard went on to say following a conversation with  Jill Roberts  that Aryan Tajbakhsh  was

omitted  from  the  game  versus  Dulwich  Hamlet  FC.  The  club  submitted  that  a  further

conversation also took place between the Manager of Enfield Town FC and Mark Ives of the

FA  Disciplinary  department  and  as  a  result  of  this  conversation  Aryan  Tajbakhsh  was  also

omitted from the game versus the Metropolitan Police.  This game would  clear the outstanding

two match suspension.

17. Dr  Howard  was  then  asked  by  the  members  of  the  Commission,  knowing  that  he  knew  the

player had a number of cautions which database had he checked, to which he replied he was

unsure.

18. Dr Howard went on to say  that he believed the club had acted in good faith,  by immediately

seeking to establish the player’s  disciplinary record  by checking the database. He said that the

incorrect recording of the player’s details which led to this situation was  not  made by his  club

and  was  therefore  outside  the  control  of  Enfield  Town  FC.   The  club  had  also  immediately

contacted the FA when  the Secretary had noticed that the player only had one caution  on his

record  following the game on the 24

th

and  subsequently  acted on the advice of the FA not to

play the player in the next two games once the club had been informed of the suspension.

19. Enfield  Town  FC  then  called  Aryan  Tajbakhsh  to  give  evidence  which  was  conducted  by

telephone.  Aryan Tajbakhsh  stated  that he informed  Mr. Wortley that  to his knowledge he was

not suspended and had around eight to nine cautions.  He had been suspended twice during

the current season, one of which was for accumulating five cautions.

20. Mr Tajbakhsh went on to say that at no point had he received any notification from any of his

previous clubs or the FA that he was suspended for reaching ten cautions. He also said that

because his suspensions did not appear on the website’s suspension checker, neither himself

nor his club could have been reasonably expected to know he was suspended.

21. Mr  Tajbakhsh  also  stated  that  having  been  made  aware  of  his  suspension,  he  immediately

served those matches, still having had no formal notification and he believed this demonstrated

that both Enfield Town and himself had acted with the best of intentions at all times.

22. Further  evidence  was  produced  by  Enfield  Town  FC,  in  the  form  of  an  e-mail  from  Ben

Marshall of the FA to the Isthmian League. The content of the email had indicated that the FA

were  only  opening  an  investigation  case  against  the  player  for  playing  whilst  suspended  for

Enfield Town FC but were not intending on taking any further action in relation to the club.

23. Enfield  Town  FC  also  submitted  that  Mr  Mark  Ives  of  the  FA  Disciplinary  department  had

relayed  orally  that  same message that  no charges would be raised  against Enfield  Town  FC

regarding this matter.

24. Mr Giovannelli  did not challenge that submission from the Club but stated that  only the Chief

Regulatory Officer or his nominee(s) could make such a decision on charging.

25. Although the club did not  raise the argument Mr. Giovannelli explained that the assurances  not

to charge  may be capable of acting in the interest of the defence analogous  to an estoppel of

some form but  the club would need to demonstrate that it had suffered some kind of detriment

having relied on those assurances. The club submitted that during their most recent match the

manager had chosen to play for the draw as opposed to the win as they were under the belief

that they would not be charged. The example given by the club occurred after they had been

charged by The FA and therefore any action they took during that match was in the knowledge

that a charge had been raised and a points deduction may follow from the league  under their

rules  if the charge was  found proven. The Commission was  not satisfied on the submissions

made by the Club that they had presented enough evidence to demonstrate an argument in

their defence analogous to an estoppel.

26. Enfield Town  FC  also produced  in evidence  a Sport  Resolution  document in regard to  a  FA

Rule K Arbitration involving Thurrock Football Club, the FA and the Isthmian League.

27. Enfield  Town FC further argued that E10 in law cannot apply. The  Commission did not agree

with this submission. The Club further submitted that they were victims to the internal systems

of the FA and if the case was proven, this would be detrimental to the Club. They had not tried

to hide anything; in fact if they had not brought the matter  to the attention of the FA  then it may

have gone unnoticed.

Determination

28. The Commission had sympathy with Enfield Town  FC  but  Enfield Town FC  were informed by

the  player,  Aryan  Tajbakhsh,  that  he  had  received  a  number  of  cautions  (eight  or  nine

according  to  his  evidence)  and  had  even  been  suspended  during  the  course  of  the  current

season for reaching five cautions. This should have given Enfield Town FC cause to check the

definitive position in respect of the player’s caution tally and eligibility with the Association. No

contact  was  made  with  the  Association  until  the  26

th

January  after  the  player  had  already

completed the two fixtures for the club.

29. There  is  some  confusion  with  the  Club  Secretary  as  to  whether  he  had  checked  only  the

suspension checker available on the County FA website or whether he had also checked the

Member Services database. If he had checked the latter then alarm bells should have rang

when that database would have shown the player to have had no cautions when the Club had

been told  by the player that  there would be eight or nine.  By checking only the former that

would only flag players who were currently under suspension assuming duplicate records did

not exist and would not inform the club of the total number of cautions a player had received.

30. Although it is not the fault of Enfield Town FC that duplicate records had been created for the

player, the origin of such duplicate records is unknown, but the rule which the Club are alleged

to have breached is in effect one of strict liability. The Club, in playing a suspended player had

breached  FA  Rule  E10  which  states  “Each  Participant  shall  comply  with  a  decision  made

pursuant to the Rule and regulations of the Association”.

31. The player had reached 10 cautions and he should have been suspended for the two fixtures in

which he played on the 10

th

and 17

th

of January which was agreed by both parties. A  decision

had  been  made  by  the  Association  pursuant  to  Regulation  11(a)(iv)  of  the  Disciplinary

Procedures  which  apply  which  states  that  “If  a  Player  accumulates  ten  cautions  in  any

Competition between the opening day of the Playing Season and the second Sunday of April in

the same Season, he will be suspended automatically for a period covering:  -  Two First Team

matches plus a fine of £20”. Such a suspension came into immediate effect and in accordance

with  Regulation  3  of  the  Disciplinary  Procedures  which  apply  the  punishment  takes  effect

“…regardless of whether or not the notification of it from The Association is received before it is

due to take effect…”.

32. The  Commission  could  not  be  certain  if  assurances  had  been  provided  to  the  Club  without

hearing  from Mr. Ives although even if such had been provided to the  club  the Commission do

not believe that to have a nullifying effect on the charge.

33. Having  given  consideration  to  all  the  evidence  presented  and  the  Rules  as  they  stand  the

Commission  found  the  charge  against  Enfield  Town  FC  of  two  breaches  of  FA  Rule  E10

proven.

Sanction

34. The  Commission  noted  that  the  club  had  no  previous  record  of  similar  misconduct  and

considered the mitigation submitted on behalf of the club. Mr. Giovannelli on behalf of The  FA

submitted that the sanction on the club should be no more than a warning as to their future

conduct.

35. The  Commission  considered  the  fact  that  the  Club  had  felt  that  it  had  done  all  it  could  to

ascertain whether the player was suspended before playing him. The Commission note that

the Club had made some checks although it had stopped short of directly cont acting the FA to

ascertain whether the player was eligible to participate or as to his accurate caution total.    In

fact when the club did contact the FA on the 26

th

January the FA identified the other records for

the player, therefore, if such contact had  been made before the 10

th

January it is likely that the

player’s suspension would have been identified.  The Commission would have expected a Club

to have conducted better research into the player’s caution total once the player had confirmed

he was unsure  whether his total was eight  or nine cautions for the season, a number which

takes  him  close to the suspension  threshold  and  one  that  a  club  would  presumably  want  to

monitor.

36. We further considered that none of the offending cautions had occurred whilst at  Enfield Town

FC and that the duplicate records on the system were not the fault of Enfield Town FC.  The

first duplicate record was created as a result of the incorrect spelling of the player’s name and

the second due to an incorrect date of birth. The  origin of these duplicate records  is unknown

and they may have been created when the player was registered by previous clubs or reported

for misconduct by match officials, in any event it was not Enfield Town FC who had created

them.

37. Having  considered  all  of  the  evidence  provided,  the  mitigation  presented  and  the

circumstances of the case the Commission  Members  were unanimous in ordering that Enfield

Town FC be only warned as to their future conduct.

38. The personal hearing fee was ordered to be retained  but the Commission did not order any

costs against either party.

39. There is a right of appeal against this decision.

Major W Thomson                  24

th

April 2015

Chairman

get a life ffs............

[michael]

well i appreciate the posting.

 

the biggest losers are probably the players of all 5 clubs who don't know whether they will be retained next season or not-thus those not retained-may not so easily get other clubs.

managers won't sign players and players won't sign because they will not know what lweague they will be playing in-and what the going salary rate is likely to be.

 

all 5 clubs will not be able to prepare properly for next season for 4/5 weeks and thus al 5 clubs start next season with a serious disadvantage

[Enfield United]

An organised well connected manager would already have his key players tapped up for next season, both if they were to be step 2 or 2 levels

[michael]

absolutely.

 

could it not be the case though that those same players may not sign until they know which league clubs will be in-wage levels may be differentclubs can't produce/finalise a contract,other clubs step in to snap them up in meantime -above all players want security.

 

managers may not want to demotivate current players by  issuing release lists-this released players from the 'ryman 5' have less time to find new clubs.

 

us supporters moan about work arrangements/loss of a days pay because of re-arrangements-but this could well be preventing players actually getting 'newclubs/jobs

[Smudge]

Just goes to show honesty does not pay.Would like to know why Mark Ives FA Discipline was not called by anyone to appear before the Commision to give his side of the story.Having had dealings with him myself a few years a ago,he is not a man to trust.

[Enfield United]

I can't believe the unanimous (except Met Police) opinion from supporters and officials who regard the punishment as unjust. The FA will be made to look stupid and inept if the decision is not overturned. They have alienated them selves with all clubs at our level by ruining the end of season events for 'real fans' who participate hands on with their local clubs. You can see how supporters of non league clubs want nothing to do with the Division 5 idea

[Bill in USA]

Just read the up-date. Meeting this Friday - think you guys will get your play-offs before the start of next season?? ^_^

[Jab_n17]

Just read the up-date. Meeting this Friday - think you guys will get your play-offs before the start of next season?? ^_^

 

prob be a PSF in August at this rate bloody ridiculous situation  

[Bill in USA]

What no news yet!!?????

[Eastside Urchin]

The FA are a joke as are the ryman league but we all knew that already

[Big J R]

Hope no-one is holding their breatrh !!

[Jab_n17]

wonder if by the end of play (pardon the pun) there be a further delay.....Fa delay,   FA delay,   FA delay and on and on and on !!!!!!!!!

[Big J R]

It has just been announced that Enfield Town F.C. lost their case.

 

I expect more will follow later.

[Bill in USA]

It has just been announced that Enfield Town F.C. lost their case.

 

I expect more will follow later.

Looks as if you are doing the play-off on Thurs

[Jab_n17]

i see after all the Enfield issues of the case and appeals, the FA and co sorting it out the legal stuff etc etc that's taken weeks the       

Fcuk wits decide to give fans, players less then 2 days to arrange with work, travel more so with the Dulwich supporters.... Also what happens with fans that have already purchased tickets that now due to circumstances can't make this Thursday do they get reimbursed ? not by MFC but the FA and co or as per normal fans don't count and as per normal get shafted.....again!!!!!!