Star FC released this statement on Monday, 1^st November, 2010.

"During the course of the week ending Friday, 29^th October, 2010, Star FC informed the Gloucestershire Football Association that it would not be appealing against the fine recently imposed upon the club at a disciplinary hearing held on Wednesday, 6^th October. As a consequence, the club also paid the £60 fine that had been imposed.

The charge levelled against Star FC by the GFA related to FA Rule E20 and concerned a perceived failure to control the Club’s Players or Spectators. This charge was raised following the first home game of the Northern Senior League season, which was played against Barnwood United on Saturday, 28^th August, 2010.

In particular, the incident which gave rise to this charge saw a Star FC player become the victim of an assault whilst trying to take a throw in. This assault was perpetrated, in the first instance, by a Barnwood United player who had been substituted in the first half of the match and who had just been shown a red card in response to his action of throwing a ball at the back of the Star FC player’s head. The assault was continued by a Barnwood United spectator. Players from both sides left the field of play to stop this altercation. This was achieved and the match resumed after the referee had consulted with both captains, as he was, at that stage, considering an abandonment. It should be noted that the club did not, at any point, deny that its players had left the field of play to stop the assault being occasioned to one of its players. Whilst the referee had not explicitly given his permission for this, in this regard the actions of the club’s players did not differ, in real terms, to those of a myriad of professional teams, as illustrated on television each week, in the celebration of the scoring of a goal. The most significant material difference, in the instance in question, was that Star FC’s players left the field of play to aid a colleague and to stop a crime that was being committed at the time. They did not leave the pitch just to dance, or duck walk, or cradle-rock or to engage in any other of a plethora of ephemeral practices in front of celebrating fans.

Although the club has decided not to appeal against the decision of the disciplinary hearing, it would like to record the fact that it categorically refutes both the allegations of the original charge and the findings of the Disciplinary hearing panel.

In doing so, the club would present the following facts.

1. FA Rule E20, which, for the purposes of the hearing, was paraphrased to " Failure to Control the Club’s Players and/or Spectators" actually states the following in its entirety:-

"Each Affiliated Association, Competition and Club shall be responsible for ensuring:
(a) that its directors, players, officials, employees, servants, representatives,
spectators, and all persons purporting to be its supporters or followers, conduct
themselves in an orderly fashion and refrain from any one or combination of the
following: racist, violent, threatening, abusive, obscene or provocative behaviour,
conduct or language whilst attending at or taking part in a Match in which it is
involved, whether on its own ground or elsewhere; and
(b) that no spectators or unauthorised persons are permitted to encroach onto the
pitch area, save for reasons of crowd safety, or to throw missiles, bottles or other
potentially harmful or dangerous objects at or on to the pitch."


Again, the club emphasises that, of the players who were on the pitch, taking part in the match, at the time that the assault against a Star FC player was perpetrated, 3 or 4 from each side left the field of play with the sole purpose of putting an end to the assault. Explicitly, the club specifically denies any allegation or suggestion that its players engaged in racist, violent, threatening, abusive, obscene or provocative behaviour, conduct or language. Most pertinently, the club entirely refutes that it was, actually, proved to the GFA Hearing that its players had engaged in such behaviour.



2. The Official Notification that the case against the club had been found to be proven, as sent to the Club Secretary by the GFA, detailed 5 stipulations under which an appeal, against the original decision, would be considered. The Club holds that it has grounds to appeal in accordance with three of these stipulations. These are as follows


1. Failure to give the appellant a fair hearing.

Star FC contends that, as it was not permitted to question the Referee on the full contents of his report, the hearing could not be considered to be fair. Star FC sought to demonstrate to the hearing that the report provided by the Referee, for the match in question, had significant inaccuracies that related to an incident in the first half, which, according to the referee, involved the Star FC captain on the day. It is Star FC’s contention that the referee’s incorrect assertion that this first half incident involved the team captain, a player who was wearing a captain’s armband and with whom he would have met before the game, with whom he would have managed the game through out and with whom he consulted with regard to the prospect of abandoning the game in the second half, significantly undermined the reliability and credibility of the whole of the referee’s report. As far as the club is aware, it is this report that formed the basis of the judgement against Star FC, in its assertion that a mass brawl ensued after players had left the pitch to stop the assault that was being perpetrated on a Star FC player. Star FC holds this assertion to be as incorrect and as unreliable as the referee’s contention that the wrong player was involved in the previous incident. However, the club was explicitly denied permission to question the referee on this matter, and thus establish the unreliable nature of his report. As questions were being posed to the referee that would have established the invalidity of his version of events relating to the first half incident, this incident was deemed irrelevant to proceedings, even though the section of the referee’s report detailing this incident had been read out at the beginning of the hearing. The Star FC player who had been involved in the first half incident was in attendance at the hearing and would have testified that it was him, and not the team captain, who was involved in the incident in the first half. However, as Star FC was not allowed to question the referee on this matter, the player was not called to give evidence.

2. (The Original Hearing) Came to a decision on the facts of the case which no reasonable body could have reached.

The only witness heard by the hearing who claimed that a mass brawl ensued, once players left the pitch to stop the assault that was being occasioned on a Star FC player, was the referee. Star FC provided 4 witnesses, all of whom testified to the fact that Star FC and Barnwood United players involved in the game only left the field of play in order to stop a fight that had already started. These witnesses were the Star FC chairman, who was performing the duties of Assistant referee at the time and who was 15 yards from the incident; A Spectator, who immediately after the game wrote to the Secretary of the Gloucestershire Northern Senior League to register his disgust at the manner in which the dismissed Barnwood United player and the Barnwood United spectator had behaved; The Star FC player who was assaulted; and a Barnwood United player, who was amongst those who had left the pitch in order to stop the assault that was being perpetrated at the side of the pitch. All of these persons separately testified that the players who left the pitch did so in order to stop the assault that was being carried out and which left the Star FC player with a black eye. All these persons also testified that no person who left the pitch threw a punch, nor did anything other than separate the assailants from the person who was being assailed. However, the hearing chose to dismiss the evidence provided by these four people in favour of the testimony provided by the referee. Contrary to this, Star FC contends that the weight of evidence provided by the four witnesses who testified that there was not a mass brawl and that players only left the field of play to stop an assault strongly supports the assertion that the original hearing "came to a decision on the facts of the case which no reasonable body could have reached", especially as the referee took no disciplinary sanctions at the time, despite his reported contention, repeated verbally at the hearing, that he had witnessed a mass brawl.

Had the Original Hearing reached a decision that the case was not proven, the ramifications for the referee would merely have been that the details provided in his uncorroborated report were mistaken. However, a verdict of "proven" in spite of the testimony of 4 people, all of whom confirmed that a "mass brawl" did not take place, does not provide for such latitude. This is because it is barely credible that 4 separate individuals could all have been mistaken, in the same way, about an incident that all 4 confirmed they had witnessed. Star FC remains highly surprised that the testimony of its four witnesses could be apparently disregarded in this way and rejects any suggestion that their integrity could be questioned. It also proffers its unreserved gratitude to all those persons who were prepared to give up a whole Thursday evening of their time to provide the Hearing with an accurate, corroborated account of the events in question.

3. (The original hearing) Imposed an award order or other sanction that is excessive.

Whilst Star FC will continue to maintain its innocence of the charge brought against it, it also contends that the award order or sanction imposed, following the decision to find the case proved, is excessive. There was no dispute that the incident in question was wholly caused by the aggression of a Barnwood United player and a Barnwood United spectator, both of whom assaulted a Star FC player, and that players from both sides left the field of play to stop this assault. However, each club has been fined £60 in relation to the incident and the two clubs have, therefore, been dealt with in a manner that suggests both were jointly responsible. It has been accepted that persons associated with Barnwood United were wholly responsible for the incident in question and, as such, Star FC is unable to reconcile itself to the equity in punishments accorded to both clubs.

3. The process involved in appealing against the original decision would involve the following, according to a conversation that took place between the Club’s Secretary and the Operations Manager of the GFA on Wednesday, 27^th October, 2010.
1. A written document, giving details of the reasons for the appeal, would have to be submitted to the FA, along with a payment of £50
2. A further hearing would have to be convened, at the GFA’s HQ, at Almondsbury. This would have been conducted by Council members of a County FA other than the GFA and would have been held during the course of a working day.
3. Representatives from the original hearing and the club would be required to be in attendance.
4. Should the appeal be lost, the club would be liable to pay the expenses of all persons present.
5. Should the appeal be lost, it would be within the remit of the appeal board to increase the punishment imposed upon the club as it sees fit.



Given the circumstances detailed above, the club’s Executive Committee felt that, as all its officers perform their duties in an honorary capacity, without ever expecting or seeking any remuneration, recompense or reward of any kind, and the club’s finances would not welcome significant claims made against them for expenses, time and inflated fines, the club’s best interests would not be served by taking the matter any further. This is because, whilst the club retains its confidence in its own innocence of the charges levelled against it, it has no confidence at all in the processes of Football’s governing bodies to recognise that innocence, following its experiences at the original hearing on October 6^th. Nevertheless, the club remains frustrated that, to all practical purposes, the opportunity to defend itself further is not available to it.



In conclusion, the club has no intention whatsoever of instructing its members, supporters, officers or players to refrain from intervening if they witness a crime being carried out, just because they happen to be on a football pitch at the time. The club has taken no internal disciplinary action over this matter and has no intention of doing so. The club believes that the players of both Star FC and Barnwood United are to be applauded for their willingness to become involved, with no thoughts, at the time, for their own personal safety.

The Club absolutely maintains its innocence of the charge brought against it."