Steve Evans Requests Football Association Simulation Action | Page 4 | Vital Football

Steve Evans Requests Football Association Simulation Action

oldgaurd said:
Steve Evans ,a paragon of virtue
Evans was suspended by Boston as manager on 4 July 2002 after a much-publicised Football Association (The FA) investigation into "contract irregularities". He later resigned as manager of the club in September 2002, after still being suspended by the club. He was found guilty by The FA in December 2002 of impeding an FA inquiry into contract irregularities. Evans was also suspended from the game for 20 months in January 2003 for involvement of the affairs of Boston, in which players' contracts lodged with the FA contained false salary details.
FA’s then-compliance officer, Graham Bean, had launched an investigation into the financial irregularites at Boston United, and, July of that year, the club was found guilty by an FA disciplinary committee of systematically lodging false contracts for players. The ploy was a simple one. Players signed contracts that were worth a fraction of the value of what they were being paid. In one case, Ken Charlery was recorded as being paid £120 per week when he was actually being paid £620 per week and had received a £16,000 signing on fee for the club, against which no tax had been paid. In another, the former Liverpool defender Mike Marsh was contracted as being paid £100 per week when he was actually earning £1,000 per week. The difference was paid through “expenses”, against which no tax was payable.

Evans was further accused of impeding the inquiry and fined £8,000. Evans lodged an appeal against charges in May 2003,but The FA rejected his appeal later that month and the punishment stood. Evans later pleaded guilty in court to conspiring to cheat the public revenue, and was given a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.
Jim Sturman QC, for example, stated that, “If your honour sends Steve Evans to prison today he will lose his job again. It has already cost him £140,000 in legal fees, fines from the FA and loss of income. I ask for tempering justice with mercy. Is it worth sending Steve Evans to overcrowded prisons? He is terrified of spending one day in prison… There has been the stress and anxiety over four years. He has not slept. His family have not slept. He is terrified”.
Meanwhile, on the pitch, he was earning himself a reputation for the levels of abuse that he threw around when decisions didn’t go his way. In February 2006, for example, he was escorted from Grimsby Town’s Blundell Park by the police after verbally abusing the fourth official. After the match, Sotnick (by then the Boston chairman) claimed, with regard to the police’s involvement during the match, that, “There seems to be a conspiracy at work. At every game Steve seems to be singled out for extra attention from the police – and I’m determined to get the bottom of this”.

Evans was given a £1,000 fine, suspended for a year, after admitting to using insulting or abusive words to the match official in a match against Peterborough United in October 2005.
Evans was sent from the dugout after an altercation with Wycombe Wanderers player Tommy Doherty for which he later received a £1,000 suspended fine from the FA. Despite this, which came on top of his conviction for tax evasion,
Click to expand...
I think Graham Bean is on record that to make matters worse Evans tried to impede the investigation. I think he said he even got a visit from a couple of heavies.
Allegedly
 
Ruskingtony said:
Ref the penalty. It looked really soft to me. But I always gauge these things on the reaction of the defender who committed the foul. He looked guilty as sin and didn't really protest much. Therefore penalty right decision.

Regarding a convicted crook, thief and cheat being allowed to still manage in the football league,this just sums up how pathetic the FA and EFL are.
Click to expand...
That sounds like Joey Barton.
 
Skip155 said:
He was pulled back. It was both a penalty and a dive. .
Click to expand...

For me, this is the point. The interpretation now seems to be, that if there is contact in the box, then it is a foul. That isn't the way I grew up playing the game, but it seems to be the way the game is played now. It also seems to be the case that unless you go down, you don't get a penalty.

So from Brennan's point of view, he knows that he has been fouled (because he feels his shirt sleeve being tugged) which is a foul, but not one that is going to be given on its own, so he throws himself on the floor.

The way that the rules are interpreted are making people throw themselves around in order to get fouls. It is becoming as stupid as the interpretation of the hand ball rule.

Gillingham threw themselves on the floor more than Lincoln, they just got their fouls in our half, but outside our box.

Once again Stevieboys' blinkered comments miss the point. We need to decide whether this is a physical contact sport or a non-contact sport.

If someone pulls a shirt it is a foul, but it simply isn't given enough to deter players from doing it.
 
Last edited:
Davidimp said:
He got done for indecent exposure while Crawley manager.

His Wikipedia article is something else, pretty damming
Click to expand...

Did he request Simulation or Stimulation action, Think they have places for that if he wants stimulation and he cant find his own Todger
 
Penalty given and probably the correct decision, but if Brennan pushed past you in a queue and you tried to tug him back slightly with his shirt and he threw himself to the ground you'd be in hysterics. I know speed of movement and balance come into the equation but Brennan will get a reputation for it and end up getting booked for simulation. I suppose if he wins more penalties than bookings he receives then it's ok.
 
Just hope this won’t give us a reputation for refs to turn more down of the 50/50 penalty decisions. I think after an earlier game, (might have been the Plymouth home game) we had a run of matched where we should have certainly had a few given.
 
Impish said:
Just hope this won’t give us a reputation for refs to turn more down of the 50/50 penalty decisions. I think after an earlier game, (might have been the Plymouth home game) we had a run of matched where we should have certainly had a few given.
Click to expand...
The boy who cried wolf, you reap what you sow etc etc
 
As Fletcher would put it in Porridge........." charmless Celtic nerk!"
Anyway this cannot be the first time this has happened at Gillingham, the F.R.U.B just doesn't like Lincoln........and we don't like him!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.