Qatar World Cup bid member!
Nov 29, 2018, 10:57 AM
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird
Yes, it's the nature of the existing links that's front and centre of this.
Assuming, then, you have no evidence that the club has breached FA Cup rules regarding dual interests in clubs, then you have no basis to claim that Brackley Town "are clearly of a different belief" (to Saints' belief that they're sufficiently separate). Yes, there's a perception because of the shared website etc but, as far as we know, that's all it is - a perception rather than anything more substantial.
Also, your hypothetical example about "some directive within the club to throw a game" etc would be very far-fetched if the club is indeed compliant with those FA Cup rules - because the whole point of the rules is to prevent exactly those types of situation. So again, unless there's a loophole in how those rules have been designed, or unless the club isn't actually compliant with them, then how can any such "directive within the club" be issued or carry weight? Of course you could still be left with a situation where, using your example, Saints went into a game with Town's destiny in their own hands but, given what I've just explained, it's hard to see how that would be any different in substance to any other club which goes into a game with the destiny of, say, a near neighbour or 'their mates' at another club in their hands - a situation which isn't that unusual and can itself arouse suspicion but can't really be legislated against.
As an aside, in a past discussion a few months ago on this I recall a reference to Ilkeston's absence from the FA Cup, the suggestion being that they perhaps weren't eligible because of their owner's links to Notts County. If that was indeed the reason, then it's an interesting comparison/contrast to the Brackley scenario in terms of substance versus perception.
(This post was edited by paulh66 on Nov 29, 2018, 11:00 AM)