|
Post by swisstony on Mar 30, 2008 12:45:16 GMT
A fine would be just pointless. They should have to send one of the loan players back otherwise everyone would just ignore the rule and pay the fine.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Mar 30, 2008 12:53:44 GMT
(Might I also suggest replacing this campaign with the one (now dead) currently residing at the top of the board? ... Or failing that, pinning the one from mumf ) ah ;D ;D winger Sometimes the threat of something is more menacing the actuality, capiche?
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Mar 30, 2008 13:07:12 GMT
Winger,
I agree wholeheartedly with your stance on the claim culture, but the link between that and this controversy is tenuous at best.
For me, this is not about why we didn't win the game or trying to turn the situation to our advantage. There are rules about the number of loan players that can be named in the 16. We observed the rules, the Wendies didn't. They need to be punished with the deduction of at least the point they gained from this match in order to send a signal to other clubs that might also consider a measly £2k fine a small price to pay for doing the same.
|
|
|
Post by njkk on Mar 30, 2008 13:08:13 GMT
The dirty cheating yorkshire bastards, they have some nice trams and beer though , so I'll let them off, The Fat Cat Pub is ace Kelham Island Pale Rider makes me tired, but a good day out despite The Stoke playing like girls for the last 20 mins
|
|
|
Post by Cupid Stunt on Mar 30, 2008 13:46:13 GMT
Surely 3 points being awarded to Stoke would be the best outcome for both clubs?
For instance if they had say 10 points docked, they'd go down, where as if we got 3 points from it, they'd only lose 1?
If not that then a replay as I love going to Hillsborough, best away game of the season ;D
|
|
|
Post by trebor63 on Mar 30, 2008 14:03:17 GMT
I don't think anything will happen just look what West Ham got away with!
They clearly broke the rules and several teams will be aggrieved (Leicester, Coventry, Colchester etc) but if we were 'awarded' the points then BristolCity, West brom, Watford and Hull will be aggrieved!
If Wednesday get a small fine then it opens the door for everyone to cheat. Surely given there are at least five officials at each match one of them should check the team sheet?
I think Wednesday may get deducted one or two points but can't see us getting anything.
|
|
|
Post by JoeStoke on Mar 30, 2008 14:09:15 GMT
Has anybody else noticed this apart from us? any of the national papers or stoke? so we can complain?
|
|
presthaven
Academy Starlet
Great Spotted Woodpecker
Posts: 162
|
Post by presthaven on Mar 30, 2008 14:24:03 GMT
A fair outcome in my view would to be deduct the 1 point from Shef Wed and award the single point to Stoke. The teams at the top end wouldn't gripe to much, and justice would be done for the teams trying to avoid relegation.
|
|
|
Post by barndoorbanjo on Mar 30, 2008 14:42:49 GMT
I agree with Presthaven. Sheff. Wed to get a fine and a 1pt deduction. I want Stoke to go up on merit not by being given points.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 30, 2008 14:44:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 30, 2008 14:58:41 GMT
It's an interesting one this make no doubt about it. They did break the rules and we have a decent argument given how we have utilised the loan system again. We sometimes get derided for apparently "abusing" the loan deals but at least we make damn sure we have the correct amount in the squad. So what do the F.A do? The Wendies didn't field an inelgible player but one of the six loanees included did score though. As the game went on Laws had options to choose from that were unfair and could have influenced the outcome of the match. A fine or a point deduction/award will have people screaming from all sides of the promotion and relegation ends of the divison so I'm wondering if the option of replaying the game may be considered (obviously we wouldn't be able to play Ric or Ryan still as they were suspended for this fixture). This potential solution isn't without it's problems though, should either team win and we don't go up or Wednesday go down by a one point margin all hell will break loose come May. I await with interest what the F.A. have to say on it, they will have to make a pretty quick and decisive decision given the stage of the season we find oursleves in.
|
|
|
Post by PerCyfilth ....Captains Log on Mar 30, 2008 15:03:04 GMT
Hell shit happens . We should have been good enough to win this game whoever they put out. We cant blame them for us missing a hatful. I can see the point if we were below them fighting against them to avoid relegation but we arent. Lets forget it and move on. I hope they stay up.(just for selling us Whelan).
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 30, 2008 15:08:18 GMT
percy, you're correct in what you say, had we have been good enough on the day we would have won and as when Leeds did something similar nobody would have bothered that much. The issue here though is what the F.A. as a governing body will do, they HAVE to do something and it will be interesting to see exactly what it is. For my money it will be the outcome least likely to cause uproar that they will plump for, so probably a fine with a suspended points deduction.
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Mar 30, 2008 15:09:06 GMT
I am beginging to think they may have done it DELIBERATLY , there was a link to a thread on one of their forums discusssing the situation BEFORE the game, and the fact leeds only got a £2K fine . Any suggestion it was a "mistake" should be taken with a pinch of salt, this is a proffesional football team we are talking about , one in the same county as the last club to do this .
I think they have done it deliberatly figuring a £2K fine is a small price to pay to try and stay up
|
|
|
Post by uttoxeterpotter on Mar 30, 2008 15:11:07 GMT
Regarding the points deduction/award argument I can recall Middlesbrough being docked 3 points about 10 years ago when they didn't turn up to play at Blackburn? which resulted in them being relegated. I don't think that Blackburn were awarded the 3 points. Can ayone confirm this?
I said from the outset that Stoke receiving the points will not happen and I think this example if I'm right shows that the opponents don't get the points.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 30, 2008 15:14:43 GMT
uttoxeter, Think you are correct, the only time there is a points award to the opposition is due to fielding an ineligble player which clearly they didn't do. If they had we would have been awarded a 3-0 win I think.
|
|
WV
Lads'n'Dads
Posts: 92
|
Post by WV on Mar 30, 2008 15:16:36 GMT
I think its funny how some of you seem to think it will be awarded as a 3-0 walkover to Sjoke. Haha. No chance. Have any of you looked into why they had 6 lonaers in the squad? were they short of players? NO other options? You wont be getting any points from it and I doubt the League will deduct points from Sheff weds as it could mean the drop for them and it won't happen to a club like that. Sorry but nothing will happen to give Sjoke advantage on this.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 30, 2008 15:18:10 GMT
You swapped the "t" in Stoke for a "j". That's brilliant, where do you get you material from?
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 30, 2008 15:20:52 GMT
That Wednesday goal should be discredited and a 0:1 victory awarded to Stoke because quite frankly their equaliser was scored by a player who should not have being on the field of play.
I just fail to see how any other team could fail to see that this would not be the right decision because afterall that player "and even all those other loanees" should not have being playing let alone being sat on the bench due to one too many making others ineligible.
|
|
WV
Lads'n'Dads
Posts: 92
|
Post by WV on Mar 30, 2008 15:23:08 GMT
You swapped the "t" in Stoke for a "j". That's brilliant, where do you get you material from? The same place as your fantastic swear filter which makes V A L E look like fail. Oh the fun! was a great 15 mins yesterday 4.35pm-4.50pm. Vale score a winner, Sheff weds score an equalizer, wba score 2!!!! last minute goals and Steve Brooker (remember him) puts Bristol back at the top Best 15 mins of our season that was. And I know we have had a bad season before the knuckle draggers take this post the wrong way
|
|
WV
Lads'n'Dads
Posts: 92
|
Post by WV on Mar 30, 2008 15:28:06 GMT
Its just come to my attention youhad 5 short term loan players in your sqaud. This is also against the rules. Wonder what gets done about that
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 30, 2008 15:28:37 GMT
So you felt the need to rise above it with intellect and wit did you? Judging by the rest of your punctuation and spelling you possibly think that's how you spell Stoke anyway do you?
Edit: 5 short term loan players in the squad is not against the rules, try again.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 30, 2008 15:29:38 GMT
WV - you ask if they had any other options. Well they certainly had a fully fit keeper but didn't include him in the squad and instead chose to name a squad with 5 outfield players as subs. So I'd say they certainly had an option - if they had named the reserve keeper plus four outfield players they'd have been fine and stayed within the rules.
I agree with Ilford on this. The message boards of all teams with large numbers of loanees (including ours and the Owls boards) have posts asking/clarifying the rules about the numbers allowed in a squad. TP has been asked about it (and given an accurate reply) at a meet the manager night. I simply don't believe that no one at Wednesday understood the relevant rule.
|
|
|
Post by cymap on Mar 30, 2008 15:30:47 GMT
And I know we have had a bad season LOL Understatement of the year
|
|
WV
Lads'n'Dads
Posts: 92
|
Post by WV on Mar 30, 2008 15:32:04 GMT
So you felt the need to rise above it with intellect and wit did you? Judging by the rest of your punctuation and spelling you possibly think that's how you spell Stoke anyway do you? Edit: 5 short term loan players in the squad is not against the rules, try again. I think you will find it is. Rules are. A Club may name up to a maximum of 5 players on a team sheet who are either Long Term Loans, Short Term Loans or Work Experience players with no more than 2 from any one Category." ] THINK AGAIN!
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 30, 2008 15:34:41 GMT
WV, you enjoy the spotlight of actually being right for a change...You are Stokereds mate arent you??
|
|
WV
Lads'n'Dads
Posts: 92
|
Post by WV on Mar 30, 2008 15:36:41 GMT
stokelad1984s mate yeah. I played footy with you for rexs team last summer.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 30, 2008 15:36:46 GMT
Come off it WV - that rule can't be right. According to that if none of your loans is on work experience you'd only be allowed 4 loans! How many of Wednesday's 6 "loans" were work experience then? ;D
|
|
WV
Lads'n'Dads
Posts: 92
|
Post by WV on Mar 30, 2008 15:38:39 GMT
I'm not saying weds didnt break the rules, they did. What I am saying is that you did also break the rules so its a bit hypocritical having a 10 page thread on what should be done about weds rules breaking. Dont you think?
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 30, 2008 15:38:41 GMT
WV....Put your fishing hook away mate.....
|
|