Following the protest by Sliema and the appeal from San Giljan over Tamas Molnar’s suspension following the Sliema-Neptunes clash, the Executive Committee has deemed it fit to make public the replies it sent to both clubs Saturday morning. They are the following:
San Giljan
We refer to your persistent emails and exchanges sent to and made with the Executive as a whole and its individual members, pursuant to the Disciplinary Commissioner’s (DC) decision concerning Tamas Molnar’s suspension, and point out the following :-
1. While you may be entitled to voice your concerns, this must always be done within reason and in line with the Association’s rule books.
2. Your rights are laid out and regulated by the Association’s rule books.
3. San Giljan opted to file an APPEAL.
4. Appeals from the DC’s decisions may be lodged only as per the Association’s rule books. Article 2 ‘i’ of the BORD TAL-APPELLI states clearly that appeals may be made only by parties to the decision.
5. San Giljan was NOT a party to the DC’s decision which it is complaining of; therefore San Giljan does NOT have the right to lodge an appeal.
6. It is incorrect to state that San Giljan is ‘an aggrieved party resulting from this decision’, because San Giljan was NOT a party to the decision.
7. It remains the DC’s prerogative to determine the running of suspensions.
8. The Disciplinary Commissioner’s (DC) decision is his, not the Executive’s. Any criticism of such decision, be it founded or other- wise, should not be directed at the Executive.
9. The Executive does not necessarily share the views of the DC.
10. The Executive must nevertheless respect the decisions of the DC (or the Appeals Board as the case may be).
11. The Executive is empowered with administering the Associa- tion, including inter alia, the organisation of disciplinary hearings. This includes ensuring that all is procedurally in order prior to proceeding with any hearings.
12. Your appeal was NOT in order. Indeed your appeal was flawed from the outset in that it was lacking 1 basic requirement – that of being filed by a party to the decision. This essentially means that the appeal was null.
13. By not entertaining such an appeal the Executive is not usurping the Appeals Board’s functions; it is merely doing its job.
14. The Executive sees little scope in appointing an Appeals Board to hear a null appeal. You will note that we have steered clear from commenting on the merits of the DC’s decision, and we have purposely avoided discussing the scope behind your complaints. The above views remain the Executive’s position for which we assume full responsibility. We trust you will do likewise. We feel that enough has been said on this matter. Any further comments and action would be superfluous, serving only to de- tract our efforts from the game of water polo which desperately needs to be lifted from the depths it has recently been cast into by those who insist on seeing to their direct interests.
Marco Manara General Secretary
Sliema ASC
We refer to your protest and subsequent emails and exchanges pursuant to the Disciplinary Commissioner’s (DC) decision concerning Tamas Molnar’s suspension, and point out the following :- 1. While you may be entitled to voice your concerns, this must always be done within reason and in line with the Association’s rule books.
2. Your rights are laid out and regulated by the Association’s rule books.
3. Sliema ASC opted to file a PROTEST.
4. Protests may be lodged only as per the Association’s rule books. Article 4 ‘b’ of the BORD TA’ PROTESTI states clearly that protests MUST be filed within 24 hours from the event.
5. The protest filed by Sliema is clearly directed at one particular event, this being the match be- tween Neptunes & Sliema which was played on the 25th July. The protest was filed on the 30th July; therefore well after 24 hours from the event.
6. The protest was therefore filed beyond the statutory time limit.
7. It remains the DC’s prerogative to determine the running of suspensions.
8. The Disciplinary Commissioner’s (DC) decision is his, not the Executive’s. Any criticism of such decision, be it founded or otherwise, should not be directed at the Executive.
9. The Executive does not necessarily share the views of the DC.
10. The Executive must never- theless respect the decisions of the DC (or the Appeals Board as the case may be).
11. The Executive is empowered with administering the Associa- tion, including inter alia, the organisation of disciplinary hearings. This includes ensuring that all is procedurally in order prior to proceeding with any hearings.
12. Your protest was NOT in order. Indeed your protest was flawed from the outset in that it was filed late. This means that it could not be entertained, even if a Protests Board were summoned.
13. By not entertaining such a protest the Executive is not usurping the Protests Board’s functions; it is merely doing its (the Executive’s) job.
14. The Executive sees little scope in appointing a Protests Board to hear such a protest. You will note that we have steered clear from commenting on the merits of the DC’s decision, and we have purposely avoided discussing the scope be- hind your complaints. The above views remain the Executive’s position for which we assume full responsibility. We trust you will do likewise. We feel that enough has been said on this matter. Any further comments and action would be superfluous, serving only to de- tract our efforts from the game of water polo which desperately needs to be lifted from the depths it has recently been cast into by those who insist on seeing to their direct interests.
Marco Manara General Secretary