fbpx
Connect with us

AFC Wimbledon

MK Dons labelled ‘bitter’ by fans after writing letter of complaint about incident at AFC Wimbledon

MK Dons have been labelled ‘bitter’ by fans after writing a letter of complaint about an incident at AFC Wimbledon a few weeks ago.

AFC Wimbledon midfielder Harry Pell has been sanctioned with a one-match ban due to his repeated act of kicking balls at MK Dons fans during the warm-up earlier this month.

The 32-year-old has accepted the misconduct charge imposed by the FA in relation to Wimbledon’s 1-0 victory at Plough Lane.

Additionally, Pell has been fined £1,000 for his behaviour.

Furthermore, both clubs have been penalised for a large-scale confrontation involving players and team members from both benches at the end of the match.

The home team has been fined £8,000, but they are currently appealing this decision.

On the other hand, the Milton Keynes club has been fined £2,500 for their involvement in the altercation that occurred on Saturday the 2nd of March.

Pell said his shots into the crowd “were not struck with power but were intended more as a playful response to the verbal abuse from some of the spectators,” in a letter to the FA on 12 March.

He added that sending the ball into the stands was a “rush of blood” reaction and “on mature reflection, I should have simply ignored the shouts and got on with my warm-up.”

The independent Regulatory Commission investigating the incident said it was likely one of his shots hit an 11-year-old girl in the crowd.

“His actions had been irresponsible, particularly given the history of the two clubs involved and the sensitive and potentially volatile nature of the match,” the commission’s findings said.

The commission also said it found Wimbledon to be “largely, if not solely to blame” for the events after the final whistle.

It concluded home players Lee Brown, Isaac Ogundere, James Ball and Ronan Curtis caused the melee by goading the travelling fans following Curtis’ added-time winner, sparking a reaction from the bench.

AFC Wimbledon said in a statement on Friday: “AFC Wimbledon have been fined £8,000 for a breach of FA Rule E20: mass confrontation during our match on 2 March 2024.

“Whilst we have accepted the charge, we have submitted an appeal regarding the level of the sanction.”

FA STATEMENT:

AFC Wimbledon, Milton Keynes Dons and Harry Pell have now been sanctioned by independent Regulatory Commissions following their EFL League Two game on Saturday 2 March 2024.

AFC Wimbledon and Milton Keynes Dons have been fined £8,000 and £2,500 respectively for their mass confrontation.

Both clubs admitted that they failed to ensure their players and technical area occupants don’t behave in an improper and provocative way after the final whistle.

An independent Regulatory Commission imposed these sanctions following a hearing, and its written reasons for the different fines can be read below.

Harry Pell has been given a one-match ban and £1,000 fine for misconduct. The midfielder admitted that he acted in an improper manner during the warm up. Another independent Regulatory Commission imposed his sanctions after a hearing and its written reasons can be seen further down in the article.

Football Association Regulatory Commission (the ‘Commission’) in the matter of FA Charges of Misconduct brought against AFC Wimbledon (‘AFCW’) and Milton Keynes Dons FC (‘MKD’).


Regulatory Commission Decision

These are the written reasons for a decision made by an Independent Regulatory Commission which sat on Wednesday 13th March 2024.

The Commission members were Mr. Stuart Ripley (Chairman), Mr. Peter Fletcher and Mr. Stuart Nelson, who are all Independent Football Members of the FA’s Judicial Panel.

Mr. Marc Medas, of the FA’s Judicial Services, acted as Secretary to the Regulatory Commission.

The following is a summary of the principal submissions and evidence provided to the Commission. It does not purport to contain reference to all points made, however the absence in these reasons of any particular point, or submission, should not imply thatthe Commission did not take such point, or submission, into consideration when the members determined the matter. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission has carefully considered all the evidence and materials furnished with regard to this case.

On 2nd March 2024 AFC Wimbledon played Milton Keynes Dons FC in the EFL League Two.

The Match Referee, Mr. Craig Breakspear, reported the following: “After I blew the final whistle on the field of play and players started to shake the match officials hands, there was a mass confrontation involving a large number of players and technical area staff from both AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons. Please can you review the match footage for any misconduct not witnessed by the match officials?”

The Match Observer, Mr. David Crick, reported the following: “Following the final whistle there was a mass confrontation between players and staff of both clubs on the field of play. I invite The FA to view the footage and determine whether any further action is required.”

Following a review of the footage, on 5th March 2024, both clubs were charged by The FA with Misconduct for breaches of FA Rule E20.1 in respect of the above fixture.

It was alleged that upon completion of the fixture, both clubs had failed to ensure that their players and/or technical area occupants did not behave in a way which was improper and/or provocative.

The Football Association designated the caseas a Non-Standard Case due to the involvement of technical area personnel from both clubs.

The above charges were consolidated pursuant to Regulation 13 of the Disciplinary Regulations 2023/24 at page 173 of The FA Handbook Season 2023/24. As such, the hearings were conducted togetherand the charges were determined at a joint hearing.

The Football Association relied on the following evidence:

i. Report of the Match Referee, Mr. C. Breakspear, dated 2 March 2024;
ii. Report of the Match Referee Observer, Mr. D Crick, dated 2 March 2024;
iii. Video clip of the incidents;
iv. Extract from Essential Information for Clubs 2023-24; and
v. Non-standard penalties 2023-24

Both clubs admitted the charge by way of the FA’s Disciplinary Proceedings Reply Form and requested that the matter be dealt with by way of a Paper Hearing and submitted reply documentation.

MKD submitted a letter dated 8th March 2024 from Martin Harris, Head of Football Administration, that contained the following observations: “In the 94th minute, AFC Wimbledon scored a late goal, which turned out to be the winner, as the match concluded only a few moments later. Due to the nature of any late goal, and particularly the emotions around this fixture in general, this increased the tension between supporters within the stadium. Following the full-time whistle, AFC Wimbledon player Mr Lee Brown (wearing number 3), who at this point was located midway inside the half closest to our supporters, immediately turned to the away end and proceeded to move back into the 18-yard box located nearest our supporters. He made several gestures with his arms to the away end, ignoring his own goalkeeper in the process, who was walking towards him. Mr Brown continued his goading and inciting of our supporters, which lasted in total for around 30 seconds. He was briefly joined by Mr Isaac Ogundere (wearing number 33) during this period, who also waved sarcastically to our supporters. These actions towards our supporters, who were proceeding at this point down the stand towards the single exit near the corner, drew a reaction from several of them, who were now being held back by stewards at the front of the stand nearest the pitch. In addition to this, substitute Mr. James Ball (wearing a green bib and number 16) who was situated in the home technical area, at the sound of the whistle proceeded initially to move to the halfway line to hug a team mate, before then running half the pitch, to the corner nearest to the away fan exit to again goad our supporters. Mr. Ball can be seen pulling his green bib down, tapping his club crest on his jumper, waving his arms, and shouting towards our supporters. As you can hear from the footage (appendix 2 and 3), this further incited our supporters, who by this point were also being goaded separately by Mr Brown. On seeing our supporter’s reaction, tension within the area mounting and no steward looking to intervene or move Mr Brown away from the area, one of our players, substitute Mr Nathan Harness, ran from his position near the technical area over to Mr Ball. On recognizing the aggravated crowd, he moved Mr. Ball back towards the middle of the pitch and away from our supporters, in an attempt to help defuse the situation and the mounting anger that was developing from the supporters. Another concern during this period were the actions of Mr Ronan Curtis (wearing number 24), who on conclusion of the match initially shook the hands of a couple of our players and the match officials located on the halfway line. He then ran past our player Mr Warren O’Hora (wearing number 5) towards the away end and the edge of the 18-yard box and began shouting and gesturing towards our supporters in the process. On seeing this unfolding and sensing the rapid growing tension from the away end (who by this point had several AFC Wimbledon players goading them), Mr O’Hora ran after Mr Curtis. In an attempt to prevent Mr Curtis’ actions from inciting our supporters further, Mr O’Hora moved him in the opposite direction away from our supporters and in the direction back towards the middle of the pitch. Mr Curtis at this point turned to square up to Mr O’Hora, resulting in players and staff from both teams coming together. After a little jostling, the group start to separate and disperse at which point AFC Wimbledon staff member, Rob Turvey who was seen pushing several of our players, before being moved away by a steward, then proceeded to tap the AFC Wimbledon club crest on his chest and then stuck two fingers up in the direction of our players/ staff. It was only at this point that the AFC Wimbledon players and staff moved into the opposite half furthest away from our supporters, to celebrate as a group with their fans. We also wish to highlight at this point, Mr Curtis’ attitude towards our club and incitement of our supporters continued in the aftermath of the game, where the following day a video was shared on social media of him singing an insulting song, towards our Club (see appendix 4). In the immediate two days following the game, we have received numerous concerns from our supporters, on various aspects of the day itself, including one who noted as follows: “At the end of the match several of their players came over to taunt our supporters. Our players intervened and I’m sure that besides a fine for the cards dished out there’ll be a sanction for the melee that followed. Frankly I’m grateful that the players intervened. I did speak to a police officer at the tunnel after the match and asked him why the police didn’t get involved with the AFCW players inciting the crowd. He said to me that it’s an FA matter and not a police one” (see appendix 5 – note some names and emails removed for GDPR). At the conclusion of the match, there were several other players who made gestures towards the away end, but the three players in particular highlighted previously, were focused on provoking our own supporters in an improper manner, rather than celebrating with their own fans, whilst the actions of the staff member Rob Turvey was also very unprofessional and insulting, all of which contravene regulation E20 and contrary to the specific pre-match instructions provided by Charles Breakspear. The provocation of our supporters could have caused a significant safety issue and serious repercussions for those within the stadium. It put fans and stewards in undue danger, which our players themselves had noticed and sort to defuse, by moving the AFC Wimbledon players away from the immediate area, before the situation escalated beyond control. Whilst we cannot deny the charge, as set out in the Essential Information For Clubs document 2023-24, the direct cause that ultimately resulted in the mass confrontation was the provocative, insulting and improper conduct of the AFC Wimbledon players towards our away supporters, as noted above, immediately at the final whistle, which we request is taken into consideration should any sanction be imposed. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. For your reference the following appendices have been included:

i. Appendix 1 – Wide angle footage from AFC Wimbledon goal through to post full time whistle.
ii. Appendix 2 – Separate footage of James Ball taken from Away Stand vantage point.
iii. Appendix 3 – Wide angle footage of AFC Wimbledon goal through to post full time whistle, with James Ball overlay.
iv. Appendix 4 – Social media post-dated 3rd March 2024 featuring Mr Ronan Curtis
v. Appendix 5 – Email from supporter regarding concerns v AFC Wimbledon.

AFCW Club Secretary, John Stanley, by letter dated 7th March 2024,
submitted the following written observations: “I write in response to the FA charge against AFC Wimbledon (‘Wimbledon’), who are alleged to have breached FA Rule E20.1A ‘Club shall be responsible for ensuring that its Directors, players, officials, employees, servants and representatives,
attending any Match do not behave in a way which is improper, offensive, violent, threatening, abusive, indecent, insulting or provocative’, (the ‘Charge’). For the avoidance of doubt, Wimbledon admits the Charge and views its culpability as equal to that of Milton Keynes Dons (‘MKD’) It is regrettable that the incident occurred and the visuals of the confrontation do not promote the values associated with the game. I hope that the Panel take the events at the end of the fixture vs MKD, on Saturday 2nd (the ‘Fixture’), as isolated and also view them taking into account the magnitude of the day itself. Clearly the
match needs no introduction, with 22 years of history behind the two clubs. Wimbledon lost to MKD 3-1 in the reverse fixture, with two red cards against Wimbledon. On that day. there were deliberate and antagonising celebrations from MKD and some very difficult conversations between Wimbledon’s coaching staff and players were had. This Fixture was the first time that Wimbledon had beaten MKD back at the spiritual home of the club in Plough Lane. With a 94th minute winner, the history of the fixture, what it had meant to the players, coaching staff and supporters, emotions were running extremely high. This does not condone the resulting actions, but does provide context of the mindset of the persons involved. Wimbledon will not seek to comment upon who initiated the confrontation, other than it seemed to be an equal coming together between Wimbledon’s #24 and MKD’s #5. What ensued after this point was clearly not appropriate for a football field. This being said, from either party there was no strong aggression. Both clubs appear to be trying to split the players apart from a situation that looked worse from afar. Wimbledon would like to draw the Panel’s attention to the fact that there were no players or coaching staff who had their hands raised in an aggressive manner. This incident is to be treated as a confrontation, with no acts of focused aggression. The charge has been admitted by Wimbledon. This alongside the fact that the confrontation was not aggravated, despite the context and culmination of the Fixture, Wimbledon appeals for leniency in respect of any sanction that may be issued.”

A Hearing was set for Wednesday 13th March 2024. The Commission had before it all of the above mentioned video footage and the written submissions of both clubs.

With the two E20.1 charges against AFCW and MKD being admitted the Commission moved to consider sanction for the breaches.

In order to reach a decision on the level of sanction to be imposed on the respective clubs the Commission viewed the video clips that had been made available to it on numerous occasions and took into consideration the contents of the documentation submitted by both clubs as well as paying heed to the FA’s Guidelines on Sanction for E20 charges.


Sanction Guidelines for Standard and Non-Standard Cases

The Commission noted that at EFL League Two level, for Standard Cases, the Standard Penalty 1 (admitted) is a fine of £1000 and the Standard Penalty 2 (denied but found proven) is £1500.

In Non-Standard cases where a breach has been admitted or found proven, a Regulatory Commission may disregard the standard penalty and may impose sanctions as high as those shown in the FA’s guidelines. At EFL League 2 level the maximum fine for a Non-Standard E20 breach is set at £10,000.

For each successive Non-Standard breach of FA Rule E20, including E20.1 and E20.2, within a 12-month period the maximum fine shall double and then treble (and so on) the amount set out above. A Regulatory Commission may exceed the above sanctions in exceptional cases where it deems appropriate at its absolute discretion.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

The Commission noted that both clubs had admitted the charges.

The Commission was informed By Mr. Medas that both clubs had three previous E20.1 proven charges on their 5-year disciplinary record but that none of these charges fell within the previous 12-month period. The fines received for all of the above-mentioned charges was £2500. As such, the Commission moved forward on the basis that, save for its discretion to move outside the guidelines in exceptional circumstances, the maximum fine for either of the Clubs would be £10,000.

Notwithstanding the above, the Commission considered the previous disciplinary history of both clubs, to some extent, to be an aggravating factor.

In coming to its decision on the level of sanction to be imposed on each club the Commission noted the following:


i. It is clear from the correspondence made available to the Commission that extensive dialogue took place prior to the fixture between the Clubs and the Police to support and ensure the safety of those attending the fixture. Indeed, prior to the game and during the team sheet exchange, the match referee addressed the potential for increased tension by speaking to both Managers about the importance of ensuring celebrations did not incite the crowd (pages 23/29 Hearing Bundle).

ii. With regard to who was culpable for initiating the Mass Confrontation, the Commission considered AFCW to be largely if not solely to blame. AFCW scored the only goal in the last minutes of the game and the final whistle went shortly afterwards. The video footage provided to the Commission showed several clearly unnecessary actions from four of the AFCW players (Brown – #3; Ogundere – #33; Ball- #16 and Curtis – #24) who instead of celebrating with their own supporters went directly to where the MKD supporters were situated, goading them with words and gestures. Unsurprisingly, as a direct result there was a visceral reaction from the MKD supporters and this prompted the initial intervention and subsequent involvement of the MKD Players. Stewards and security staff could be seen trying to prevent MKD supporters from accessing the pitch. The actions of the AFCW players had the potential to cause serious disorder. This provocative behaviour endangered the safety of the stewards and security personnel.

iii. The Mass Confrontation included the involvement of numerous technical area staff from both Clubs. This was reflected in the case being designated as Non-standard and is an aggravating feature for both Clubs. The aggressive and confrontational actions of AFCW staff member, Rob Turvey were also noted by the Commission and added to the aggravating factors that applied to AFCW when assessing the level of sanction to be applied.


iv. Similarly, the need for the involvement of Stewards in the Mass Confrontation is also an aggravating feature.


v. In terms of the Mass Confrontation itself, the levels of aggression and confrontation were not considered by the Commission to be particularly high. There was a lot of pushing and shoving with verbal exchanges but there was nothing exceptionally aggressive or violent about the situation as a whole.

The Commission members were unanimously of the mind that AFCW was significantly more culpable than MKD in respect to causing the Mass Confrontation and that the fines imposed on the two clubs ought to reflect this.

The Commission fines MKD the sum of £2500 to reflect the number of its players and technical area staff that became involved in the confrontation and that the Club has three proven E20 charges on its previous 5-year disciplinary record and the involvement of stewards.

The Commission fines AFCW the sum of £8000 to reflect that it was undoubtedly the provocative actions of its players that caused the Mass Confrontation, the number of players and technical area staff that became involved, the individual actions of Rob Turvey, the Club’s three proven E20 charges on its previous 5-year disciplinary record and the involvement of stewards.

In assessing the sanction to be imposed on AFCW, the Commission did not take into consideration the Social media post featuring Ronan Curtis, considering it irrelevant to the Mass Confrontation charges.

Having taken all the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case into consideration the Commission came to the conclusion that the following sanctions were proportionate and appropriate for this Non-Standard case in all the circumstances:

a) MKD is fined the sum of £2500.
b) AFCW is fined the sum of £8000.

This decision is subject to Appeal in accordance with the FA’s Rules and Regulations.

Stuart Ripley

Regulatory Commission Chairman 16th March 2024

THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION REGULATORY COMMISSION

NON – PERSONAL HEARING of HARRY PELL (Case ID: ON-24000287)

THE DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMISSION

These are the written reasons of the decision of a Regulatory Commission of the Football
Association (the “Commission”), having considered the matter as a non-personal hearing held
online via the video platform MS Teams on 18th March 2024.


Introduction

The Football Association (“The FA”) had received a report of alleged Improper Conduct against Harry Pell (“Mr Pell”) as defined in FA Regulations. The report was in the form of a letter of complaint dated 5th March from Mr M Harris, Head of Football Administration for Milton Keynes Dons FC reporting incidents connected with a match played on Saturday 2nd March 2024 between AFC Wimbledon and Milton Keynes Dons FC (“the Match”).

The FA investigated the reported incident.

The Charges

3. On 6th March 2024 The FA charged Mr Pell with a breach of FA Rule E3.1 – Incident of Misconduct (Fast Track 2) and categorised the charge as a Non-Standard case.

4. It was alleged that during the warmup, prior to the fixture commencing, Mr Pell acted in an improper manner contrary to FA Rule E3.1.

5. The relevant section of FA Rule E3.1 states: E3.1 A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour”.

6. The FA included with the charge letter the evidence that it intended to rely on in this case.
7. Mr Pell was required to respond to its charge by 11th March 2024.

The Reply

8. Mr Pell responded to the charge by letter on 5th March 2024 seeking to explain his actions.

9. Mr Pell formally responded to the charge by submitting the reply form on 12th March 2024 admitting the charge and asking for the matter to be dealt with by way of a paper hearing (a non-personal hearing). The reply form was accompanied by a statement from Mr Pell and a document setting out his mitigation of the charge.

Commission

10. The Commission was convened by The FA and comprised Paul Tompkins, as a Chair Person, with Wing members Brian Talbot and Francis Duku to adjudicate in this case.

11. The Commission was assisted by Marc Medas, FA Judicial Services Officer who acted as secretary to the Commission.

The Hearing & Evidence

12. The Commission sat on 18th March 2024 via MS Teams (“the Hearing”).

13. Prior to the Hearing all parties, including the Commission members, had received and read the bundle of documents and viewed the video evidence submitted with the bundle.

14. The following is a summary of the principal evidence before the Commission and does not purport to contain reference to all points made. The absence in these reasons of any particular point, piece of evidence or submission should not imply that the Commission did not take such point, piece of evidence or submission into consideration when determining the matter. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission carefully considered all the evidence and materials furnished in this matter.

15. The following evidence was provided in the case bundles:

15.1. Letter from Mr. M. Harris, Head of Football Administration, Milton Keynes Dons FC, dated 5th March 2024.

Mr Harris states, “During the warmup, the AFC Wimbledon goalkeeper was undertaking a shooting practice with their goalkeeping coach in the goal where our supporters were positioned immediately behind and to the side. Whilst this drill was taking place, AFC Wimbledon player Mr Harry Pell had also positioned himself just outside the 18-yard box. Instead of shooting into the goal itself, Mr Pell deliberately struck numerous footballs directly into our supporters, of which several struck various people, one as young as 11 years old. Please see appendix 1, 2 and 3 which shows video footage of these incidents”.

Mr Harris goes on to relay third party evidence of the incident:

“(1) “When the AFC players were warming up their player, Harry Pell, was shooting balls into the MK Dons crowd and my 11-year-old niece got hit straight in the side of the face all because Harry Pell thought it was funny”.

(2) “I’m not sure if you may have seen the incident itself or heard about it but during the warmup at today’s game (Wimbledon away) Their player, Harry Pell (number 8) was intentionally and deliberately kicking the football with power at the away fans. These shots weren’t aiming for the goal as shooting practice. It was a deliberate shot at the away fans. This happened multiple times, over and over. Harry Pell was laughing and smiling when the fans were confused at why they were being targeted. A young girl was sat on the row behind me and was hit in the face”.

(3) “I have been to these games before so not surprised how the away club treat MK Dons fans. However, I was not expecting a professional football player to intentionally kick footballs repeatedly into the away stand. AFC player, Harry Pell (8) repeatedly and deliberately kicked footballs into the away stand. I would estimate he did this about 8-10 times. I feel this is extremely unprofessional and dangerous. This could have resulted in a fan being injured. One of the balls did hit me, I punched it away as it came flying at me”.

(4) “An AFCW player was taking pot shots at our supporters with footballs. If he got a hit he erupted into a broad smile. John S and I were sat to the right of this, and the balls were being struck with ferocity at our supporters on a regular basis.” Mr Harris also referred to social media posts of AFC Wimbledon supporters (Appendix 4), coverage in the national press and social media posts which Mr Pell had “liked” or
reposted, which he suggested gave the lie to any suggestion that Mr Pell’s actions had been unintentional. Mr Harris also raised further concerns arising from the Match, which were not the concern of this Commission.

15.2 Appendix 1 – a video of Mr Pell striking ball into away supporters.

15.3 Appendix 2 – a further video of Mr Pell striking ball into away supporters,

15.4 Appendix 3 – a further video of Mr Pell striking ball into away supporters,

15.5 Appendix 4 – a video taken by an AFC Wimbledon supporter. The video had been taken by Conor Keenan and posted on X with the legend, “Interesting warm up from Harry Pell who has spent the last few minutes booting the ball into the away end.”

15.6 Appendix 5 – an extract from Mr Pell’s social media repost of the incident. Mr Pell reposted a video entitled “@Harrypell_7 lacing balls at the scum. #COYD #AFCW”. Mr Pell also reposted Conor Keenan’s post on X (Appendix 4 above)

15.7 Appendix 6 – Mr Pell’s social media feed Likes

15.8 Further video evidence of Mr Pell striking ball into away supporters.

15.9 Screen recording of Mr Pell’s Social Media posts of the incident.

15.10 Letter from Mr Pell, AFC Wimbledon, dated 12th March 2024. Mr Pell had accepted the charge and in his letter he stated variously:

• “I accept that my actions on 2nd March were not befitting of a Professional
Footballer”

• “the situation got the better of me and I responded inappropriately to the Away support”

• “My “shots” were not struck with power but were intended more as a playful response to the verbal abuse from some of the spectators”

• “Sending the ball into the stands was a “rush of blood” reaction – on mature reflection, I should have simply ignored the shouts and got on with my warmup”

• In reference to his earlier letter of 5th March, Mr Pell said, “emotions were raised and the potential seriousness of the situation had not dawned on me” and “I did not want to taint the day by admitting guilt.”

• “Fully understanding now the impact my actions may have had on the individuals effected (even though done without malice) and mindful of my professional responsibilities, I admit the charge”

• “I accept my actions were improper”

• “I would also wish to apologise unreservedly to anyone who was hurt in any way, and to The Football Association.”

15.11 The FA’s response to Mr Pell’s reply. The FA recited the circumstances of the case and stated, “It is The FA’s case that the deliberate nature of these actions was plainly improper.” The FA also stated, “The FA invites the imposition of a financial penalty commensurate with the serious nature of the misconduct and HP’s position in football. HP has admitted the Charge and thus should be afforded appropriate credit.”

16. That concludes all the evidence that was provided to the Commission in the case bundle.

Standard of Proof

17. The applicable standard of proof required for this case is the civil standard of the balance of probability.2 This standard means, the Commission is satisfied that an event occurred if it considers that, on the evidence, it was more likely than not to have happened.

The Findings & Decision

18. The Commission reminded itself that the burden of proving a Charge falls upon The FA.

19. In a Commission such as this, the assessment of the evidence is entirely a matter for the Commission. It must assess the credibility of the witness, that is whether the witness is attempting to tell the truth, and the reliability of the witness, that is whether, even though a witness may be attempting to tell the truth, their evidence might not be relied upon.

20. Having considered which evidence to accept and which to reject, the Commission then has to decide if, on the balance of probabilities, the alleged breach of the FA Rules is established.

21. It should be noted that where direct speech is quoted in a witness statement, it has been recorded exactly in the wording and grammar in which it appears in the witness statement, without making any grammatical or typing alterations to obvious typographical errors.

The Hearing

22. The Commission proceeded as a non-personal hearing on the strength of the paper evidence
in accordance with the request of Mr Pell.

General provision A8 on page 169 of the FA Handbook 2022/2023

Deliberation on Charge

23. The Commission considered carefully the evidence before it. Notwithstanding the acceptance of the charge by Mr Pell, the Commission still needed to consider whether the charge was proven or not and determined that the evidence and acceptance allowed them to find the charge proven.

Aggravating and mitigating factors:

24. Notwithstanding the comments in mitigation presented by Mr Pell and his club the commission considered his actions to have been reckless and dangerous. From the evidence presented by Milton Keynes Dons it was likely that an 11 year old girl had been struck by one of the balls kicked by Mr Pell. His actions had been irresponsible particularly given the history of the two clubs involved and the sensitive and potentially volatile nature of the match.

25. Mr Pell had accepted the charge, although his initial indication was that he was intending denying it. That he had thought better of his position and accepted the charge was to his credit but by way of aggravation he had used social media to enjoy his temporary notoriety in the following days which strongly suggested to the Commission that Mr Pell understood what he was doing and also underlined his motivation for doing so. Far from distancing himself from the incident Mr Pell reposted posts identifying him and highlighting his actions.

The Participant’s Record

26. The Commission sought details of Mr Pell’s disciplinary record over the past five
completed seasons and nothing was disclosed. This was to his credit.

Sanction

27. The Commission considered carefully what sanctions should be imposed. The Commission was aware that this was a non-standard case and was also mindful of the representations from The FA. However the Commission was unanimous in considering that a sporting sanction needed to be imposed as well as the financial one.

28. The standard sanction for the nearest equivalent standard penalty is a one match suspension from playing and a £500 fine where the offence is admitted. However this is a non-standard case. The Commission considered the intentional striking of several footballs into a targeted section of the crowd could easily fit into a description of assault. It was not clear why Mr Pell had done what he had done but his intention was clear. Also clear was that he enjoyed the attention he received at the time. He may not have been intending to hurt any spectators but it must have been obvious to him as a professional footballer that this was a potential outcome and his actions had been extremely reckless at best.

29. The Commission took note of Mr Pell’s declared total weekly football income.

30. Having taken into account the aggravating and mitigating factors available to it the Commission imposed the following sanction against Mr Pell:

• A one match suspension from playing football until such time as AFC Wimbledon have completed one (1) first team competitive match (Category 1) in an approved competition

• A fine of One Thousand Pounds (£1,000)

31. The decision is subject to the right of appeal under the relevant FA Rules and Regulations.

Paul Tompkins (Chair)
Francis Duku
Brian Talbot

Twitter users reacted with MK Dons labelled ‘bitter’ by fans after writing a letter of complaint about an incident at AFC Wimbledon…

@sportswithjohn: Please let me personally pay this fine and deliver it to the FA in the form of 160,000 five-pence coins.

@GeoffNorcott: Totally unconnected of course, but is there a simple way for fans to donate money to the club?

@BrooklynDon6: £8,000 for 10 seconds of nothing? Ridiculous.

@JoeZBlair: Because the opposition couldn’t take the L

@KS_250204: Okay so where’s their fine? Their players couldn’t control themselves after getting wiped across plough lane🤣

@benjpelliott: Would we do it again? Absolutely. Worth every penny. 💛💙

@ArryHarrison: Honestly, the franchise really are the biggest bunch of melts! Desperately trying to be just another club, but whining to teacher every time the big boys are horrible to them! Another reason they’ll never be properly accepted in the football world! 😂😂

@Charlieleahyy: I’ll take the 3 points. But we’ve been fined 8 grand for something the scum started? The FA really do love to pick sides 🤣

@samuelkthurston: This is an absolute joke. If a bit of pushing and shoving between players, and winding up the opposition fans with cheeky gestures gives an £8k fine then the FA should be dishing these out for about 1/5 of all League Two games. FA clearly has it in for us for some reason #AFCW

@WomblesDream: Fuck them and twice on Sundays. Every time we play them it has to be like this, every time, we go to war 🔵🟡

@charlietabloid: Not the first time we and the Franchise get treated very differently by the authorities. Then again, they never told them not to have a football club, in fact they gave them one.

@StuartdDeacons: We accept the charge as AFC Kingston (mentioned hurtfully by the opposition fans) of winning the game and having the cheek to celebrate. We also understand we are to make formal complaints to the FA whenever we lose and the other team make happy gestures which we can see #afcw

@Meust98: Considering the day we had great value. F*cking bargain. A big thanks to the players, coaching staff & supporters who said ‘F*ck that’ to behaving 🫡 #AFCW

@timw88: Can only recall one team losing it at the final whistle. Joke of a decision! 💙💛

Related Topics
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

More in AFC Wimbledon