Welcome

It is not my place to offer any personal comment on the articles of correspondence below, and as such I will leave it to the reader to come to their own conclusions with only a few comments concerning the content of the correspondance from myself. However what I will say is that the facts detailed below most certainly speak for themselves.

Areas of the correspondence you may find interesting in terms of the role played by Colin Peake are as follows:

In "Correspondence between Colin Peake and John Moules":

• Similarly, we are concerned about the stance adopted by the Football Association. Kindly confirm on what basis the Conference are aware that the FA chose not to proceed. It does not reflect what has happened in similar circumstances. Please also confirm what stance the Conference Board has taken with the FA and what responses have been made. As a member we trust that the strongest approach has been taken to ensure the rules are upheld.

This last sentence is a direct contradiction to the public claim by Colin Peake that he had no wish for Altrincham to be deducted points.

• Against a background of uncertainty and the potential effect on all member clubs, we ask that you respond by return. For the avoidance of doubt, we write without prejudice to our own rights as a member club which we reserve in full, particularly to take whatever steps might be necessary to protect our position.

In "Communication originating from Colin Peake for the attention of the FA":

• Whilst we reserve our rights to take whatever steps are necessary, you will understand our concern.

• From correspondence between our club and other member clubs it is felt that due to the FA notifying the Conference that they would not bring any charges against Altrincham, the Conference are now reluctant to charge.

• At this time the matter is critical from the point of several clubs facing relegation and is also against a backdrop of the case of how the FA dealt with Leigh RMI last season, an issue with which Steve Clark (Competitions Manager) had concerns at the time, and of course numerous clubs in the Conference, who have been dealt with previously under their Rule 6.1.

It is noticeable that Colin Peake does not mention any of the numerous past examples that have been more favorable to the club committing such an offence.

• We need to ensure that all steps are taken to uphold the rules and maintain continuity. We are concerned that within the Conference there are indications that the FA ruling passed down, applies to Conference rules as well as the findings of the FA investigation to date involving Altrincham FC.

From this it seems that Colin Peake is concerned that the Conference will adhere to the FA's decision. The motivation for his correspondence it seems is to prevent this from happening.

• We would remind you finally that we reserve our rights, particularly in respect of any recourse to the Freedom of Information Act should we suspect that this matter is not dealt with in an open, fair and consistent manner. Further, we are considering how best to deal with this matter which may have a direct bearing on the future of our own club and other members of the Football Conference Ltd.

It appears that Colin Peake is suggesting that should the decision not go the way he wishes then there may be further action taken by FGR and other Conference clubs.

Thank you for taking the time to read this information, I hope it is now clear to you exactly what role was played by Colin Peake in this incident.

Correspondence between Colin Peake and other Conference clubs

From: Colin Peake [mailto:xxxxxxx@fsmail.net]> Sent: 16 April 2006 19:50> To: 'aldershot town'; 'burton albion'; 'cambridge u'; 'canvey > island'; 'crawley'; 'dagenham & redbridge fc'; 'exeter city'; > 'gravesend & northfleet'; 'grays'; 'halifax town'; 'hereford > united'; 'kidderminster'; 'morecambe'; 'scarborough'; 'southport'; > 'stevenage borough'; 'tamworth'; 'woking'; 'york city'> Cc: Chair FGRFC; john> Subject: Urgent Email/Attachments for Conference Clubs

PLAYER ~ JAMES ROBINSON

Dear Colleagues

The Conference Board meets this coming Thursday and you should all be aware from previous emails that we did not wait to be in the relegation zone before I expressed my concern over this affair. I have always upheld the rules of our compeitition and have often been asked to advise other clubs, when they sought clarification. In fact when our club was a member of the Southern League, clubs there will recall how I often stood up to challenge the interpretation of rules etc. Without rules any league would be a total shambles. Even in the case of Tamworth last season, when on a technicality they played a player who was not properly registered, I told them whilst no one said they set out to cheat, they were in breach and it was then down to a commission to rule on the charge and the FA on any subsequent appeal.

It is surely detrimental to the way all of us expect breaches of rules to be dealt with, to institute charges and then withdraw them and ask the Board to consider the matter. Having spoken to many of you personally, surely the agreed way is to let a commission deal with the matter and if any club is not happy they have the right of appeal. Rule 6.1 strikes at the very core of how we register players and we should have confidence in the rules protecting ALL clubs, even if it may not directly concern them at this specific time.

Of course there will be those who point to the fact that FGR arebottom and that Tamworth FC, Southport and Scarborough are in the relegation zone area. However, before you think it doesn't concern anyone else what happens, just what might then be said IF the clubs involved in the movement of the player had been reversed and we were looking at Accrington Stanley having a player who had played in 14 matches (earning 18 points) and not having received international clearance. Also and probably more important we have the matter of a player changing his playing status and signing for a club when the window was closed. If the Conference accept the FA investigation, and our argument has been that the FA should only inquire into whether there was a breach of FA Rules and not Conference Rules, the opportunity for other clubs to claim ignorance will be available and certainly open to abuse to circumnavigate the registration system.

As indicated above, this matter was already scheduled to be dealt with by a commission on 13th April and this delay cannot do any good or be conducive to the good running of the Conference. Both FGRFC and Tamworth FC received a letter from the Operations Director, stating that unless we made an official complaint about the matter, the Conference would withdraw the charges and place it before the Board. Both FGRFC and Tamworth vehemently rejected such a demand, clearly advising the Operations Director that the Conference did not need any club to complain to bring charges under Rule 6.1. and in any case they already had laid charges and called a commission. A copy of that letter is also attached and both FGRFC and Tamworth consider the letter to have been almost a threat.

In our eight seasons in the Conference we submit that to allow the tested procedures not to take place is an insult to the likes of Burton Albion, Redditch United, Scarborough, Tamworth, Cambridge City, Leigh RMI and lately Havant & Waterlooville, who are still deciding whether to appeal against a deduction of points, even when the player was eligible under Rule 6.1.

No club last season complained against Tamworth FC when they faced a commission under 6.1. When they lost and appealed last season, as did Leigh RMI and others, they all lost their cases at the FA on appeal. All of sudden to our club and to others who have also been concerned, the FA and the Conference seem to wnat to turn the rules upside down. I know I am often referred to has being cynical and therefore when asked the question "If this matter had come to light after just one match, would it be dealt with in this same way?", I could only answer that I couldn't answer.

Attached you will find two draft letters. One to the Conference and the other to the FA. In respect of the latter we do not ask you to do anything, other than to take on board the content. In respect of the letter to the Conference, if you feel like us that there is a fundamental question on the future rules of the Conference, then we ask that you also urgently communicate in writing with the Conference along similar lines to our letter, using your own club headed paper. If you do support our concern to the Board, could you please advise us, so we can judge if you see the same issues that concern us. Again I re-iterate, just because we are down the bottom doesn't mean that we stand the most to lose. Every club does.

Colin Peake
Football Secretary & Press Officer
Forest Green Rovers FC
Nationwide Conference

Communication originating from Colin Peake for the attention of the FA

Brian Barwick
The Chief Executive
The Football Association
25 Soho Square
London
W1D 4FA


Dear Mr Barwick,

Re: Application of FA Rules regarding international clearance

We write to you on a matter of grave importance in relation to FA Rules and the Rules and Regulations of the Football Conference Ltd.

Background

The matter concerns a player named James Robinson.

We understand that the Australian FA recently sought International Clearance for a James Robinson, to register for a club named Richmond Eagles. It was stated that his last club was Altrincham FC, members of the Football Conference. According to FA registration records, the player was not eligible to play in England, having been cleared in April 2005 from Crewe Alexandra to play in Iceland. Eventually the player was cleared by Iceland to Australia in March 2006.

Notwithstanding the above, the player had indeed been registered to play for Altrincham. In total he played in 14 Conference fixtures; if there were no international clearance this would deem his registration to be invalid and in breach of Conference Rule 6.1.

Due to this alleged breach, an FA investigation was conducted. From an email sent (30th March) to all member of clubs of the Conference National Division we were advised that the FA were investigating the matter with Accrington Stanley only and would not be taking action against Altrincham FC.

Our concerns

The above matter raises serious issues for the game as a whole.

We are concerned that in a press statement from the FA it has now been stated that “Altrincham have not committed an offence of playing a player, who had not received an international clearance certificate, because they signed him from another English club”.

This statement is in direct contradiction to a decision of the FA last season when another Conference club who were expelled from the FA Trophy. Similarly other clubs have faced sanction. Please clarify immediately on what basis the decision was made and if our understanding is correct on which rules the FA relied in making such decision.

Whilst we reserve our rights to take whatever steps are necessary, you will understand our concern. If he was, for example, registered as a ‘non-contract’ player we question how a player can still change his status, contrary to FIFA and FA regulations. If indeed this happened we are mystified as it occurred when the ‘window’ was closed, which apart from certain exemptions he would be unable to do.

Obviously, we have not had sight of either of the registration forms that the player would have been required to sign. Please provide a copy of each. We presume there is no reference of having played in Iceland and such clearance being necessary to make the player eligible?

The relationship between Football Association and Conference

You may be aware that the Conference last week charged Altrincham FC with breaches of Conference Rules 6.1. and 6.8.

We are seeking clarification but it appears these may have now been withdrawn and the matter referred to their Board of Directors, due to meet on 20th April.

From correspondence between our club and other member clubs it is felt that due to the FA notifying the Conference that they would not bring any charges against Altrincham, the Conference are now reluctant to charge.

The need for certainty and clarification

You will appreciate the concern at this stage of the season, in particular, that this matter is dealt with transparently and with regard to the rules.

Our view and of other clubs is that the situation needs urgent clarification.

At this time the matter is critical from the point of several clubs facing relegation and is also against a backdrop of the case of how the FA dealt with Leigh RMI last season, an issue with which Steve Clark (Competitions Manager) had concerns at the time, and of course numerous clubs in the Conference, who have been dealt with previously under their Rule 6.1.

Accordingly we await your urgent response to the points we have raised. We need to ensure that all steps are taken to uphold the rules and maintain continuity. We are concerned that within the Conference there are indications that the FA ruling passed down, applies to Conference rules as well as the findings of the FA investigation to date involving Altrincham FC.

It is our view that this cannot be correct, particularly as the FA should only sit to hear and rule on any subsequent appeal?

We apologise for the length of this letter but you will appreciate how serious this matter could be for the future way that clubs approach the whole issue of international clearance and the status of players; also there is potentially a significant effect on the eventual outcome to the season as a whole.

We would remind you finally that we reserve our rights, particularly in respect of any recourse to the Freedom of Information Act should we suspect that this matter is not dealt with in an open, fair and consistent manner. Further, we are considering how best to deal with this matter which may have a direct bearing on the future of our own club and other members of the Football Conference Ltd.

Your immediate response setting out the background to the matter, the findings made, the reasons underpinning those and all supporting documents are then urgently awaited.

Yours sincerely,

Correspondence between Colin Peake and John Moules

John Moules
Operations Director
The Football Conference Ltd
51 Highfield Road
Dartford kent
DA1 2JS

Dear John
Re: International Clearance and Registration Issues

We are concerned to note the lack of clarity surrounding the serious issues regarding potential breaches of Conference (and Football Association) rules about the registration and obtaining of clearance for a player by both Altrincham FC and Accrington Stanley FC.

Our letter to you is not directed at those individual clubs but rather toward our concern that all rules and regulations are applied properly and in the correct manner.

It was widely reported last week that Altrincham FC had been charged for such breaches. Your office confirmed to all member clubs that appropriate steps had been taken. Notwithstanding this it has subsequently been suggested that you have now decided to instead have the matter initially considered by the Board before deciding how to proceed.

It has also been noted that the Football Association have chosen not to charge Altrincham FC without giving any substantive explanation by reference to their rules.

You will appreciate that many clubs have been placed in this position previously. The rules are clear as to the procedures to be adopted where breaches occur. As a member club of the Conference we expect and trust that the rules will be applied. We would be grateful if you could explain the correct position; given your advice that there appears to have been a prima facie breach of the rules. Please confirm when the charges were brought, the timetable set for dealing with them and what response has been made.

Similarly, we are concerned about the stance adopted by the Football Association. Kindly confirm on what basis the Conference are aware that the FA chose not to proceed. It does not reflect what has happened in similar circumstances. Please also confirm what stance the Conference Board has taken with the FA and what responses have been made. As a member we trust that the strongest approach has been taken to ensure the rules are upheld.

Against a background of uncertainty and the potential effect on all member clubs, we ask that you respond by return. For the avoidance of doubt, we write without prejudice to our own rights as a member club which we reserve in full, particularly to take whatever steps might be necessary to protect our position.


Yours sincerely,
Secretary
For and on behalf of
xxxxxxxxxxx FC