Accrington charged
Comments
-
Good. Still don't know how Sykes has managed to emerge unscathed.4
-
Embarrassing for their owner.0
-
Should have been kicked out of the league.5
-
Lol what's the secret of avoiding that infamy over the last 60 years then?Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
4 -
At the very least. I would actually favour forced liquidation with the brand name abolished to prevent another pheonix from the ashes.Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
Will the EFL do that? Will they bo..........4 -
Any video of them surrounding the lineman?0
-
Reasonable for Millwall but maybe a little harsh on Accringtonbobmunro said:
At the very least. I would actually favour forced liquidation with the brand name abolished to prevent another pheonix from the ashes.Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
Will the EFL do that? Will they bo..........5 -
That won't work. Even with a new name their fans will just keep going "Milllllllll........."bobmunro said:
At the very least. I would actually favour forced liquidation with the brand name abolished to prevent another pheonix from the ashes.Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
Will the EFL do that? Will they bo..........
What? Oh....
1 -
I have to say well done to the FA.
Correct decision.2 -
it seems odd that their keeper's red card appeal was successful yet Taylor's stands .. yet we are not charged .. I suspect the abuse dished out to Taylor as he left the field played a big part in this decision1
- Sponsored links:
-
Good question.RedChaser said:
Lol what's the secret of avoiding that infamy over the last 60 years then?Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
It helps to have an undoubted favouritism shown towards you by all of those Millwall fans in the FA.
You can make sure that you don't actually do anything that warrants that scenario coming to fruition.
For the record, we've been avoiding that infamy for far more years than 60. The first baby we eat was, reportedly, in 1889 5 -
Sykes and Finley were kicking our player and then a few of them wanted to get at the linesman, our players were quite restrained.Lincsaddick said:it seems odd that their keeper's red card appeal was successful yet Taylor's stands .. yet we are not charged .. I suspect the abuse dished out to Taylor as he left the field played a big part in this decision
1 -
Oi, how old do you think I am ffsBig_Bad_World said:
Good question.RedChaser said:
Lol what's the secret of avoiding that infamy over the last 60 years then?Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
It helps to have an undoubted favouritism shown towards you by all of those Millwall fans in the FA.
You can make sure that you don't actually do anything that warrants that scenario coming to fruition.
For the record, we've been avoiding that infamy for far more years than 60. The first baby we eat was, reportedly, in 1889 1 -
Where is this place called 'Milllllllll' that you've reported we'll be 'going'?PragueAddick said:
That won't work. Even with a new name their fans will just keep going "Milllllllll........."bobmunro said:
At the very least. I would actually favour forced liquidation with the brand name abolished to prevent another pheonix from the ashes.Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
Will the EFL do that? Will they bo..........
What? Oh....0 -
thanks .. I wasn't there so only going on the brief pictorial/TV evidenceiaitch said:
Sykes and Finley were kicking our player and then a few of them wanted to get at the linesman, our players were quite restrained.Lincsaddick said:it seems odd that their keeper's red card appeal was successful yet Taylor's stands .. yet we are not charged .. I suspect the abuse dished out to Taylor as he left the field played a big part in this decision
0 -
Not odd at all.Lincsaddick said:it seems odd that their keeper's red card appeal was successful yet Taylor's stands .. yet we are not charged .. I suspect the abuse dished out to Taylor as he left the field played a big part in this decision
Why would we be charged ?
It was only Taylor and he has already been punished.
I suspect it was most of their players threatening behaviour towards Taylor, our players generally and the linesman.
I doubt you were there as it's a long old trip to The Valley.
So you may not have seen their aggression towards the linesman and the "trouble" they started in the tunnel.1 -
In Surrey, just outside Croydon.Big_Bad_World said:
Where is this place called 'Milllllllll' that you've reported we'll be 'going'?PragueAddick said:
That won't work. Even with a new name their fans will just keep going "Milllllllll........."bobmunro said:
At the very least. I would actually favour forced liquidation with the brand name abolished to prevent another pheonix from the ashes.Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
Will the EFL do that? Will they bo..........
What? Oh....2 -
We'll forget about the alleged earth tremor that shook the tunnel 😉.Covered End said:
Not odd at all.Lincsaddick said:it seems odd that their keeper's red card appeal was successful yet Taylor's stands .. yet we are not charged .. I suspect the abuse dished out to Taylor as he left the field played a big part in this decision
Why would we be charged ?
It was only Taylor and he has already been punished.
I suspect it was most of their players threatening behaviour towards Taylor, our players generally and the linesman.1 -
iaitch said:
Any video of them surrounding the lineman?
4 -
They won’t do it because it’s a ridiculous idea.bobmunro said:
At the very least. I would actually favour forced liquidation with the brand name abolished to prevent another pheonix from the ashes.Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
Will the EFL do that? Will they bo..........0 - Sponsored links:
-
Hark, is that the sound of a mild whoosh?Mametz said:
They won’t do it because it’s a ridulous idea.bobmunro said:
At the very least. I would actually favour forced liquidation with the brand name abolished to prevent another pheonix from the ashes.Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
Will the EFL do that? Will they bo..........5 -
What makes you say that?Mametz said:
They won’t do it because it’s a ridulous idea.bobmunro said:
At the very least. I would actually favour forced liquidation with the brand name abolished to prevent another pheonix from the ashes.Big_Bad_World said:Should have been kicked out of the league.
Will the EFL do that? Will they bo..........
I think it's got legs.3 -
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.4 -
He's apologised because he's been caught, if he's apologising to anyone it should be to Lyle Taylor!!
Of course he's caught him though as you see his foot move as it connects with his head7 -
Plenty of bias comments on the Accrington forum but a couple that were made over the weekend by two different posters that they might prefer to erase given the charges made against them:
"Unfortunately, however, I suspect the club will be in for a big fine for the way almost all the Stanley players ‘remonstrated’ with the linesman after the alleged penalty decision. Never seen such behaviour, outside of South America in the 70s, towards a match official."
and
"Finley rather disgracefully stamped on the head of one of their players, and Jimmy Bell is, in my opinion, very wrong with his post match interview.
Would be nice if the players and management could approach things in the same way as chairman and fans....although I understand that tensions will rise higher for them."
8 -
No doubt in my mind, Accrington have been charged because of their players' conduct towards the officials - particularly the incident with the linesman.iaitch said:Any video of them surrounding the lineman?
Nothing to do with the Taylor incident.
They've dealt with that already.
FA will see that they need to show that they protect officials.
0 -
And what happened after the match...Oggy Red said:
No doubt in my mind, Accrington have been charged because of their players' conduct towards the officials - particularly the incident with the linesman.iaitch said:Any video of them surrounding the lineman?
Nothing to do with the Taylor incident.
They've dealt with that already.
FA will see that they need to show that they protect officials.0 -
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.NorthumberlandAddick said:I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.2 -
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.Covered End said:
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.NorthumberlandAddick said:I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.1 -
Shame the ref didn’t protect his colleague at the time.Oggy Red said:
No doubt in my mind, Accrington have been charged because of their players' conduct towards the officials - particularly the incident with the linesman.iaitch said:Any video of them surrounding the lineman?
Nothing to do with the Taylor incident.
They've dealt with that already.
FA will see that they need to show that they protect officials.4
