|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 30, 2008 15:42:13 GMT
Come on WV - I'll call your bluff - give us a link to the rule you have so intelligently misquoted.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2008 15:43:34 GMT
Middlesborough v Blackburn; December 1996 (top memory by someone above!) Middlesborough docked 3 points. No award to Blackburn. BUT game was rescheduled, giving Blackburn fair chance to take all three points (the rescheduled game ended 0-0) ah
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 30, 2008 15:46:09 GMT
Mikaelsson, Herd, Howland, Eckersley etc
All short-term, weren't they?
And all featured in the same game(s)?
And didn't Norwich field 5 short-term loans in their 16 yesterday - Pearce, Bertand, Pattison, Evans and Gibbs?
Let's face it, we've breached no rule while they've driven a coach and horses through one of the most widely-known football league regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 30, 2008 15:46:12 GMT
Andy that would seem to be the fairest option as I said a few pages earlier. Bet it dunner happen though - we ARE Stoke after all.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 15:51:25 GMT
They left two of these ace shithot players on the bench so it made no 'legal' odds to what happened on the pitch whatever their 'options' were. This thread is litigation culture in a nutshell: you fall over and immediately start looking around for someone to sue rather than thinking you should watch where you're going. First of all, that point is so far wide of the mark it's like an Ade Akinbiyi shot on goal. There is absolutely no point in having a rule if you take an attitude like that when people break it. An equivalent argument might be letting a drunk driver off the hook for running someone over because he was only slightly over the limit. Sheff Wed committed a flagrant rule breach and certainly should be punished. "Laws had tactical changes and cover for injuries available to him throughout the 90 minutes that he couldn't have had if he'd had a legal 16 to choose from once the whistle blew. The whole game was, from that moment on, played on a basis running totally contrary to FA rules. It's black and white and they should have the book thrown at them." I agree with that FullerM, but imo the fact that only four of the loanees played is something that the league will consider. The reason I think that is the Leeds case - a paltry fine was imposed (frankly taking the piss out of the rule) and one of the reasons cited was that Leeds had a late injury to contend with - if they consider that to be "mitigating circumstances" then I don't think it will be difficult for Weds to argue that the result of the game was not directly affected. All this talk of "that player who scored should not have been on the pitch" is not going to wash. So what to do about it? I honestly think the fairest all-round result would be for the point to be deducted from Sheff Wed and a hefty fine imposed. I can't see any reasonable way that Stoke could be compensated: A points award would be farcical, far too much of an assumption placed on the idea that we would have won if they'd stuck to the rules (let's face it - we wouldn't). The teams around us would be up in arms and rightly so - effectively they would have been disadvantaged by Weds' rule breach. A replay would also make no sense, as it would give SW the opportunity to actually benefit further from breaking the rule. Unfortunately, I think it's just our tough titty that the rule-break happened against us. We need to forget it and move on. The last thing we need at the moment is to be being distracted by fighting a lengthy, and ultimately losing, battle off the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 30, 2008 15:54:28 GMT
I think the outcome to create the least controversy would be a replayed fixture. We have to remember that we are not the only ones with an interest in this issue, the teams around us and Wednesday will also be having their say I would imagine. I still doubt anything other than a fine will be levelled at them though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2008 15:55:39 GMT
Couple of points: 1. All Stokies are well aware that nothing good for Stoke will come of this sorry affair; however we do reserve the right to moan about it for the next 50 years if upcoming results don't go the right way* 2. This topic will self-destruct very soon if people keep posting on it ... (Yes, I know John ... I'm hoping for the "Bury" FA Cup result as no replay was forthcoming then - points awarded to the Daft-One for the spot last night ... ) ah * - Please see the man directing aircraft, from the touchline in a certain FA-Cup semi-final, 36 years ago (thanks ...)
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 15:57:49 GMT
Andy that would seem to be the fairest option as I said a few pages earlier. Bet it dunner happen though - we ARE Stoke after all. The problem is forny that our match ended in a draw. If Weds had won that would have been fair, but you can't replay a drawn match, it means that the offending team can further benefit.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 16:00:45 GMT
I think the outcome to create the least controversy would be a replayed fixture. And what if Wednesday won it? Do you think the other relegation-threatened teams would view it as fair that they broke a rule and ended up gaining two points from it?
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 30, 2008 16:05:43 GMT
I agree with you PL, as I said earlier it's not without its problems but I'm looking at how the F.A. may view it. If they give SW a tap on the back of the hand we could argue that we will put all 7 of our loanees in the squad for the remaining games and as long as more than 5 play we'd be ok. If the F.A do nothing the teams in the bottom 6 will kick off, but as you rightly say, if they replay the game and SW won then there would be a lot of unhappy clubs down there. That's why a big fine and suspended points deduction is what I actually think will happen.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 16:09:09 GMT
I agree with you PL, as I said earlier it's not without its problems but i'm looking at how the F.A. may view it. If they give SW a tap on the back of the hand we could argue that we will put all 7 of our loanees in the squad for the remaining games and as long as more than 5 play we'd be ok. If the F.A do nothing the teams in the bottom 6 will kick off but as you rightly say if they replay the game as SW won then there would be a lot of unhappy clubs down there. That's why a big fine and suspended points deduction is what I actually think will happen. I agree, although I think the point should be deducted outright frankly. The league (or FA - who is it actually) have to be harsh to prevent teams doing it again.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 30, 2008 16:13:23 GMT
I have real trouble predicting what decisions the football authorities will come up with lately, nobody seems to have any clarity on a wide variety of issues within football.
|
|
|
Post by Vodkab1ock on Mar 30, 2008 16:15:57 GMT
ok lets make this SIMPLE
THE RULE
47.3.1 A maximum of 5 loan Players (either Short Term or Long Term) can be named in thesixteen Players listed on a team sheet for any individual Match. This figure shall include any additional loan of a goalkeeper approved by the Executive under the provisions of Regulation 49.
i think we can all agree that they have broken this rule by naming 6 loan in there match day squad.
Ok so lets now look at what Sheff Weds + Stoke will argue
SHEFF WEDS
We accept we broke the rule with the 6 players but only 4 played at anyone time and it didn't effect the outcome
STOKE
Stoke will argue that we left 2 players out of are 16 man squad who we would of liked to play in the game and would of made us stronger if they had been in the 16. Also one of the 6 players scored a goal and finally when they brought on one of the 6 from the bench he influenced the game.
**ALSO** the football league will have to look at the implications on the other clubs around the playoffs and relegation zones
Ok so we now know what the aquisations and arguments are so what will happen now?
Stoke will contact the FA and Football League and report the rule break and how it effected the game etc.
PUNISHMENTS [/color]
Replay - will not happen as Stoke could be in a worse position and Sheff could get the win and be better off. THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN!!
Fine - this is 100% guaranteed to happen, they broke the rule and will be given a fine of some sort.
Point Deduction - IF the football league decide that Sheff Wed got any advantage over us or any other team in the league by breaking this rule then expect the 1 point to be gained to be lost. IF this happens Stoke will then claim that they should be awarded the win.
so to but this in simple english...
they have broke the rule and it is up to the Football League and the FA to decide on the punishment.
Hope this guide helps you to understand "SIX LOAN PLAYER SCANDAL"
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 30, 2008 16:16:13 GMT
Potterlog - good point - but I have a cunning plan. Saturday's game should be declared null and void with no points awarded. Wednesday should be deducted 4 points and the game should be replayed. If Wednesday win it then they will still be a point down, if we win we'll be 3 points to the good.
Admission to the replayed game should be half price with the takings going to charity. ;D
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 16:21:37 GMT
Potterlog - good point - but I have a cunning plan. Saturday's game should be declared null and void with no points awarded. Wednesday should be deducted 4 points and the game should be replayed. If Wednesday win it then they will still be a point down, if we win we'll be 3 points to the good. Admission to the replayed game should be half price with the takings going to charity. ;D I like it - I also think that Stoke should be allowed to name 6 loan players for the replay, one of them being Wednesday's goalscorer, whom SWFC have to donate to SCFC for that game.
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 16:41:31 GMT
Before mass gayness broke out and twenty thousand barrack room lawyers staged an occupation of 'messageboards' they had one sub and if the goalie was injured an outfield player went in to whom you could sing, 'He's here, he's there, he's everyfuckingwhere.'
I miss those days.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Mar 30, 2008 16:45:44 GMT
Before mass gayness broke out and twenty thousand barrack room lawyers staged an occupation of 'messageboards' they had one sub and if the goalie was injured an outfield player went in to whom you could sing, 'He's here, he's there, he's everyfuckingwhere.' I miss those days. And every game finished 4-4 with a penalty miss in the last minute! Hugs all round?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 16:50:43 GMT
Before mass gayness broke out and twenty thousand barrack room lawyers staged an occupation of 'messageboards' they had one sub and if the goalie was injured an outfield player went in to whom you could sing, 'He's here, he's there, he's everyfuckingwhere.' I miss those days. Assuming your logic winger, if a team in "those days" had actually illegally named two subs instead of one, one of them being a goalkeeper who came on and saved a penalty, the opposition would just be a bunch of mercenary litigationist whingers if they complained about it?
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 16:53:11 GMT
C'mon, that's doubling the subs. A club would have to put ten on the bench to achieve that now. In these circs the points should be deducted and given to us pre kick-off.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 16:58:43 GMT
C'mon, that's doubling the subs. A club would have to put ten on the bench to achieve that now. In these circs the points should be deducted and given to us pre kick-off. Right, I see. So breaking the rules a little bit is ok, but at some indeterminate point you draw a line and say "right, you've gone too far now, you've REALLY broken the rules now." Always good to have a clear position on these things.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 30, 2008 16:58:49 GMT
ok lets make this SIMPLETHE RULE47.3.1 A maximum of 5 loan Players (either Short Term or Long Term) can be named in thesixteen Players listed on a team sheet for any individual Match. This figure shall include any additional loan of a goalkeeper approved by the Executive under the provisions of Regulation 49.
i think we can all agree that they have broken this rule by naming 6 loan in there match day squad. Ok so lets now look at what Sheff Weds + Stoke will argue SHEFF WEDS We accept we broke the rule with the 6 players but only 4 played at anyone time and it didn't effect the outcome STOKEStoke will argue that we left 2 players out of are 16 man squad who we would of liked to play in the game and would of made us stronger if they had been in the 16. Also one of the 6 players scored a goal and finally when they brought on one of the 6 from the bench he influenced the game. **ALSO** the football league will have to look at the implications on the other clubs around the playoffs and relegation zonesOk so we now know what the aquisations and arguments are so what will happen now? Stoke will contact the FA and Football League and report the rule break and how it effected the game etc. PUNISHMENTS [/color] Replay - will not happen as Stoke could be in a worse position and Sheff could get the win and be better off. THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN!! Fine - this is 100% guaranteed to happen, they broke the rule and will be given a fine of some sort.
Point Deduction - IF the football league decide that Sheff Wed got any advantage over us or any other team in the league by breaking this rule then expect the 1 point to be gained to be lost. IF this happens Stoke will then claim that they should be awarded the win.so to but this in simple english... they have broke the rule and it is up to the Football League and the FA to decide on the punishment. Hope this guide helps you to understand "SIX LOAN PLAYER SCANDAL"[/quote] 6 loanees in a squad of any number gives that team an unfair/illegal advantage when it comes to making tactical switches due to various ammounts of options this then opens up.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 30, 2008 17:04:06 GMT
I am sure that a team got kicked out of the FA cup for fielding an illegal player....Did the losing team go through? Also werent Nantwich kicked out of a cometition whilst leading 3-0 recently for doing the same which meant the FCUM went through....Precedents all round!
|
|
|
Post by potters11 on Mar 30, 2008 17:06:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 17:14:26 GMT
Potterlog, I'm saying, 'That's life.' I discard people who've got a PhD in Knowing Their Rights. They're always on the sick with a bad back.
The outcome of yesterday's game is nothing to do with Wendy having one extra loanee on the bench.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 30, 2008 17:17:01 GMT
tazi is right. Let's keep in mind why this rule is there. It exists to reduce the scope for teams to overinflate the quality of the matchday squad where the club has a large number of loan players. The rule means (as TP said at the meet the manager night) that you can have large numbers of loan players BUT YOU CAN ONLY PICK FIVE OF THEM FOR ANY MTACHDAY SQUAD.
Yesterday both sides had more than five loan players to choose from. Stoke stuck to the rules and named five in the matchday squad. Wednesday broke the rule and named six. This meant that Stoke reduced the potential of their matchday squad and Wednesday didn't.
Cut and dried. The only question is will the authorities make a decision which is fair to all clubs.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 17:20:57 GMT
Potterlog, I'm saying, 'That's life.' I discard people who've got a PhD in Knowing Their Rights. They're always on the sick with a bad back. The outcome of yesterday's game is nothing to do with Wendy having one extra loanee on the bench. I completely agree with all of that. However, it's completely beside the point. Do you agree that Weds broke a rule and should be punished? That's all I'm saying - I don't think Stoke will benefit. In an ideal world we should, but there is no satisfactory way that we can be, as I said further up the thread.
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 30, 2008 17:25:41 GMT
Yes, they should be fined. But no one would give a fart if we'd won the game.
All this makes us sound like Sheffield Utd at the end of last season: they didn't go down because West Ham had dodgy paperwork on Carlos Tevez; they went down because they were too shit to get a result at home to Wigan on the last day of the season.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Mar 30, 2008 17:26:43 GMT
For the life of me I can't understand why people would want this match replayed. This is Stoke City. You just KNOW that we'd lose it.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 17:28:46 GMT
Yes, they should be fined. But no one would give a fart if we'd won the game. All this makes us sound like Sheffield Utd at the end of last season: they didn't go down because West Ham had dodgy paperwork on Carlos Tevez; they went down because they were too shit to get a result at home to Wigan on the last day of the season. Maybe, but would WHU have stayed up without Tevez? Would they fuck.
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Mar 30, 2008 17:35:31 GMT
most likely outcome IMO is a 5 figure fine and the point shef weds won on saturday will be withdrawn. We'll keep the point we gained and life will go on. That sends the message to the other teams that they can't do it and expect to keep the points - however it also stops any "deals" with already relegated teams for them to effectively throw a game 3-0 by fielding an ineligable team in exchange for a rather heafty paper bag.
we're not going to benefit from this any more than we already have (ie. the point we won) We're still 2nd and have a great chance of going up, we just need to find some of our early '08 form in time for the palace game.
|
|