Rumours spreading that Danny Wilson may have been ineligible for Hearts yesterday as he was sent off for Rangers in the last game he played in the competition three years ago. He wasn't on the SFA's published list of players who were ineligible to play in this weekend's games but the same list also says the following:

 

"IT DOES NOT DETAIL THE SUSPENSION OF ANY PLAYER WHO HAS BEEN UNREGISTERED FOR MORE THAN ONE SEASON  – THIS 
INFORMATION MUST BE CHECKED DIRECTLY WITH THE DISCIPLINARY DEPARTMENT."

 

The only other ways that Hearts could be in the right by playing him are if either:

- He was suspended for the next game for Rangers in the league (he obviously wasn't as he played in the next game for them)

Or

- Suspensions cross borders and it was served at his time at Liverpool (not sure of the rule for this)

 

Is this something the club should look at or mere straw clutching? 

Edited January 27, 201313 yr by Guest

In the cold light of day ie It 2 days post match, I think Govan Jaggie is right. Not sure how hearts would feel the same if the boot was on the other foot tho.

I don't see this being anything more than a clerical error. I'd love to see ICT back in the cup as the rules were broken but I do think that there will be a bit of hand slapping and possibly a fine handed down which should go to an ICT charity or to ICT themselves.

 

We should have put them away when we had the chances but alas we never, hearts ground out the victory even with ten men and we're out.

 

I think if we were to be in the final, we should do it the way ICTFC do everything........EARN IT and being honest with myself I think we dropped the ball in the semi which is a shame but we move on and concentrate on getting ICT into Europe next season! 

In the unlikely event that we were to get any sort of second chance out of this, I wouldn't feel at all guilty about us benefiting from an admin oversight on this particular occasion because Hearts, on the point of going bust and unable to pay wages, suddenly bring in millions of pounds worth of talent from Liverpool days before this big game. And as it turned out, Wilson and Ngoo were probably their best players.

 

I know Hearts haven't broken any rules in bringing them in, in the same way that Starbucks, Amazon etc haven't broken any rules by not paying any UK tax.  It just doesn't feel right.

Edited January 28, 201313 yr by Yngwie

I wouldn't want to get to the final after this.  I'm sure its just an error somewhere.  We're not in the final because we didn't take some chances my granny could have scored. Not becasue Danny Wilson was playing.

Official statement from the club appears to put it to bed. No accompanying paperwork from English FA suggesting a ban still exists!

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement

Yes i‘m sure it was an error. But the error was noticed BEFORE the game and the SFA alledgedly told Hearts to play him anyway. That‘s what annoys me. If it was an oversight noticed after the match then I wouldn‘t be bothered. The transfer embargo gets lifted, they sign 2 Premiership players, one which in ineligible for the game. They speak to the SFA who know fine well that the rules state he should be suspended, but can‘t find it in their paperwork.

Meanwhile clubs like Caley Thistle run things with such a tight budget but have to suffer because of the error.... that was found BEFORE the game - according to STV article.

When did he serve the ban?

When did he serve the ban?

Looks like he didnt. Club statement doesnt really clear it up at all but obviously not going anywhere! 

I wonder if he hasn't actually served the ban. But do to going down south and back up north it has been lost In the process. So effectively he should have to serve the ban. Maybe we need the SFA to give a statement !

Official statement from the club appears to put it to bed. No accompanying paperwork from English FA suggesting a ban still exists!

http://

ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement

Yes yes yes. We know the paper work says there‘s no ban.

But according to the SFA source, Hearts approached them before the game. They acknowledge that in his last league cup game he was red carded. They also acknowledge this means he must miss his next league cup game. So my question is, when they realised the paper work was wrong (before the match was played) why did they still tell Hearts he can play? (Assuming the ‘source‘ in the STV article is telling the truth).

Edited January 28, 201313 yr by CapitalCaley

What does concern me about this is that if Hearts and the SFA checked this out before the match to check if he was eligible, then what kind of people actually work for the SFA if members of the public who have less resources/records than them can clearly spot he was banned and hasn't received his punishment to date, Surely that is basic admin work?

Where is Charlie Bannerman when you need him to put the SFA on the spot?

 

The ICT statement does not completely close the door on a challenge I would suggest. It merely says we have asked the question (but we have not had a complete answer).

So is it the case that if the documents from the English FA say there is no suspension, then that is accepted by the SFA, even if they know it to be wrong?

 

If so it begs the question, what if it was ever the other way round, in that documents from the FA to the SFA incorrectly said a player does have a suspension. You'd imagine that they'd be back in touch with the FA to get it corrected.

I wouldn't want to get to the final after this.  I'm sure its just an error somewhere.  We're not in the final because we didn't take some chances my granny could have scored. Not becasue Danny Wilson was playing.

I completely disagree.  Wilson and Ngoo were two of Hearts better players.  There's every chance we might have won without those two, or at least one.

I agree starchief. Wilson also scored a penalty!! When Dunfermline got found out they were 4-0 winners however still had to have a reply and it wasnt dunfermlines fault remember, it was an admibistrative error by the SFA. We should at least be given a replay! As a paying member of ICT i fully expect my club to fight this!!

I understand the club have to be diplomatic in their verbage .... but we do not ... Someone is LYING through their teeth and arses are being well and truly covered. so I have as simple question

WHEN was this ban served ?

 

The answer to this, and the chance to verify it will put this to bed, anything else will not.

What's annoying me about this is that fine fair enough the boy had a clear certificate when he came back to Scotland but they won't bother their arses to actually find out from the FA if indeed he actually served the ban.

The club can ask the SFA but the vital question is being left unanswered - Was the ban actually served?

It's happened before. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-472843/Ban-glee-McCulloch.html

Sure it's a technical glitch and we lost on the day yada yada yada... however Danny Wilson played 120 minutes of football and played a part in an equaliser. What would have happened if he served his ban? We could of been at Hampden in March.

Edited January 28, 201313 yr by ICTRoughi

I understand the club have to be diplomatic in their verbage .... but we do not ... Someone is LYING through their teeth and arses are being well and truly covered. so I have as simple questionWHEN was this ban served ?

 

The answer to this, and the chance to verify it will put this to bed, anything else will not.

Perhaps the club can't stir it with the press, but CJT can and should as the fans voice. There are some decent journalists out there who would love to get their teeth into this.

that statement on the official website is a ******* joke.

who from the club is dealing with this?

The club are maybe happy to just get on with things but maybe someone else can take up matters and press the SFL/SFA or whoever for a clear answer?

If this had been the other way around I just can't help thinking it would not be getting brushed aside as quickly.

The feckers already had home advantage FFS without further aspects going their way.

 

Anyway for what it is worth my opinion is that we had our chance and we failed to take it.

However many, many other clubs would explore this potential lead as far as they could...

I would love to hear Mad Vlad's rant if a decision was made against the edinburgh huns.

I think the fact that the FA said there were no unserved suspension is pretty much "end of" because the SFA have no official information or jurisdiction to go delving into a player's history when he's abroad.

 

 But anyway, I might have got this wrong but is it not the case that :

1. Suspensions cross borders with the player
2. Each suspension is tournament specific (eg 1 SPL match, or in this case 1 Scottish League Cup match). As each country has its own tournaments, the FA receiving the player just applies the suspension to the first available game in any tournament.
3. If Wilson served the suspension with  Liverpool, that's the end of it.
4. If he didn't, then Liverpool, not Hearts, were guilty of fielding an ineligible player, and that would be a matter between them and the FA.

Get this to the press!!

I've just phoned the SFA, they didn't sound interested, this really needs to be led by the club methinks.

It was the fans who were cheated here, if ICTFC want to dismiss Hearts fielding an ineligible player who helped them win the match, then ICT are sending a crystal clear message to our cheated support (which I'm sure you can work out on your own).

Draw a line under it and move on , you lot are starting to sound like Old Firm fans !

The only thing that needs to be checked now is the English FA's rules on cross-border suspensions. Danny Wilson was NOT in the squad for Liverpool's league game with Arsenal as previously mentioned  so could have served his suspension then if the FA's rules make provisions for this. If not, he hasn't served it.