|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 30, 2008 20:22:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by **** Pulling Himself Off on Mar 30, 2008 20:24:23 GMT
I don't like this thread.
I'm gonna post on the original again.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Mar 30, 2008 20:39:21 GMT
BUMP
|
|
|
Post by algor on Mar 30, 2008 20:40:31 GMT
Maybe add "Part 2" to the title mate. Karma
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 30, 2008 20:52:08 GMT
Save the old thread, before it dies. Pin it and lock it.
|
|
|
Post by Vodkab1ock on Mar 30, 2008 20:53:56 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]
|
|
|
Post by potters11 on Mar 30, 2008 20:59:30 GMT
Couldn't have been put better....over to the Football League / FA.
|
|
|
Post by tigger68 on Mar 30, 2008 21:03:46 GMT
my opinion is that we played a team with players that don't normally play together......therefore we should of beaten them.......just like we should be doing anyway..lets not use this as an excuse we sound like a bunch of schoolkids............
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Mar 30, 2008 21:06:17 GMT
my opinion is that we played a team with players that don't normally play together......therefore we should of beaten them.......just like we should be doing anyway..lets not use this as an excuse we sound like a bunch of schoolkids............ Nobody is using it as an excuse for not beating them, but rules are rules, we had to leave out 2 of our loan players.
|
|
|
Post by bloody56 on Mar 30, 2008 21:07:08 GMT
I think Wednesday will get a fine, one point deduction and perhaps 3 goals deducted in their goal difference. The only chance Stoke had of gaining anything, would have been if they had spotted and reported the incident to the match officials before they made any substitution. Stoke unfortunatly are too trusting and i might not have occured to them to scrutinise the Wednseday team sheet. if they received their copy before the match.
|
|
|
Post by tigger68 on Mar 30, 2008 21:10:07 GMT
some are saying the game should be replayed.....so they are using it as an excuse...we did'nt beat them, they might get a fine and thats it....why cry about it..........would everyone want to go up by complaining and getting points by default.................look at west ham last year with tevez...............you are living in cloud cuckoo land................
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 30, 2008 21:19:49 GMT
Wouldn't it be brilliant if we could get the extra couple of points though! At first I thought " it's our fault for not finishing the game off", in theory it was ,but songo'o scored!! Their fucking loanee. But seriously, how thick can a manager get! 6 loan players in a matchday squad, football manager 2008 stops you from doing that, perhaps Laws needs a tool such as this?? ;D Gooarn stoke.
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 30, 2008 21:21:28 GMT
would everyone want to go up by complaining and getting points by default Honestly wouldn't bother me. They have broken the rules and if we benefit then brilliant!!
|
|
|
Post by tigger68 on Mar 30, 2008 21:22:54 GMT
bloody56 was spot on stoke should have picked up on it.........................no use moaning now we have to kill these kind of games off and we don't...................
|
|
|
Post by Mr Jon on Mar 30, 2008 21:25:17 GMT
I bet if the Owls had done it against West Brazil then the boys from Rio de Smethwick would get the 3 points from the powers-that-be. Can't see its happening to us though Basically we should have had the game won by the time 55 minutes was on the clock
|
|
|
Post by tigger68 on Mar 30, 2008 21:28:05 GMT
nobody more gutted than me we dropped 2 points and stoke cost me 300 quid on the fixed odds.....................but we have to start finishing games off it cost us a play off place last year and it seems like history is going to repeat itself........................
|
|
|
Post by Adster on Mar 30, 2008 21:29:00 GMT
its the loansgate scandal, ;D
there is no point in going on ifs and buts, but this is something that does need to be addressed, i would like to hear from someone official at stoke as to thier views on this and what they are wanting. ;D
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Mar 30, 2008 22:55:42 GMT
Kill these kind of games off? They beat us 4-2 at home, they are now fighting for their lives and a not bad team either, we were away to a big club who are trying as hard to stay up as we are of going up. I know how you feel but we don't need to be playing these sort of teams right now
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Mar 30, 2008 23:00:37 GMT
Woolystanton......Are you going to this 'wheel' this one and then 'lock it' like you did to mine...?
Eh'?
Eh.?
What's good for one ....should be the same for another .....bollox...?
Who's sulking now eh..?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Mar 30, 2008 23:06:04 GMT
I did.
Then I brought it back again by request for valid reasons other than an individual (you) deciding that they wanted top billing for their particular point of view.
It did help that the request was made in a civil manner without mardarse accusations and abuse being thrown the way of the moderators (like you did).
I will leave it to the people who made the request to explain.
Meanwhile if you want to make a complaint try pm'ing us or confine it to the general board.
Don't spam this thread up please.
|
|
|
Post by robin1302 on Mar 30, 2008 23:12:30 GMT
football manager 2008 stops you from doing that, perhaps Laws needs a tool such as this?? ;D Karma!
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Mar 30, 2008 23:14:57 GMT
Well IF YOU can answer me those points I raised earlier ..then I will gladly be a good boy.
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Mar 31, 2008 6:08:48 GMT
Well IF YOU can answer me those points I raised earlier ..then I will gladly be a good boy. why don't you just fuck off you spamming little cock
|
|
|
Post by Rebelliousjukebox on Mar 31, 2008 6:22:48 GMT
Woolystanton......Are you going to this 'wheel' this one and then 'lock it' like you did to mine...? Eh'? Eh.? What's good for one ....should be the same for another .....bollox...? Who's sulking now eh..? This is a continuation - hence "Part 2" - rather than a completely new thread on the subject, and therefore surely not the same situation.
|
|
|
Post by sovietonion on Mar 31, 2008 8:54:57 GMT
my opinion is that we played a team with players that don't normally play together......therefore we should of beaten them.......just like we should be doing anyway..lets not use this as an excuse we sound like a bunch of schoolkids............ Agreed with that but- what happens if Cort has aggravated his calf injury so badly that his misses games for the run in? That could cost us couldn't it? If we had broken the rules we could have played Zakuani there surely and allowed Cort recovery time? Shouldn't have happened in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 9:01:58 GMT
They had plenty of options on the bench!
They bought on Showumni, and in theory, he changed the game!
And that fucking songo wongo twat scored.
1 point off wednesday, 2 points to stoke.
This isn't an excuse, after calming down after missing all of those chances, i firmly believe we need points for this.
WE WEAKENED OUR SQUAD BECAUSE OF THE RULE. THEY STRENGTHEND IT!
It's not on.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 9:04:29 GMT
Interesting snippet from the Mail...
If Stoke do miss out on automatic promotion and then fail to claim a Premier League place via the play- offs it could cost them upwards of £35million.
Sources close to the club were yesterday hinting that they would immediately seek legal advice if Wednesday were to escape with a fine.
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 31, 2008 9:07:37 GMT
31/03/2008 - Waiting game for Stoke By Martin Spinks STOKE City could be in line for a priceless two-point handout from the Football League if a landmark judgement rules in their favour. Sheffield Wednesday are in the dock after naming six on-loan players in their 16 against Stoke on Saturday when only five are permitted. Now the Football League has launched an inquiry into the apparent breach of their rules. Wednesday seem certain to face punishment - including a possible docking of their point from Saturday's 1-1 draw - but less certain is any recompense Stoke can anticipate as the infringement is almost without precedent. Stoke are keeping their powder dry for now by awaiting the League's ruling into Wednesday's extraordinary oversight. Stoke's chief executive Tony Scholes stated: "We went straight onto the League on Saturday evening when the situation first became known to us and they told us that the situation would be considered on Monday morning. "We are now waiting to see what emerges before deciding whether it is appropriate for us to consider any further action on the matter." Football League spokesman Jon Nagle added: "All we can say is that the team sheets from this game will be processed and analysed in due course and any necessary action will be considered when that has taken place." There is one precedent when Leeds were fined £2,000 after including six loanees in a Championship fixture at Burnley in November 2006. But, crucially perhaps, Leeds lost the game. The League's adjudication in this latest breach will reverberate throughout the entire Coca-Cola Championship because of the respective positions of Stoke and Wednesday at either end of the table. A re-match is unlikely because Stoke would lose out if they were beaten. Though one compromise would be for Stoke to keep their one point from Saturday and for the two clubs to replay the fixture for the remaining two points. Stoke's representation to any inquiry will include the fact they weakened their own hand on Saturday by omitting on-loan duo Paul Gallagher and Gabriel Zakuani to comply with League rules. The identity of Wednesday's second-half scorer - loanee Franck Songo'o from Portsmouth - will not go un-noticed either. Wednesday, who are declining to comment at present, will protest that not all six loanees were on the pitch on Saturday as hired hands Adam Bolder, from QPR, and Bartosz Slusarki (of West Bromwich Albion) remained on the bench throughout the 1-1 draw at Hillsborough. www.whydelilah.co.uk/news/Waiting-game16584534.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Mr Jon on Mar 31, 2008 9:09:14 GMT
Wednesday gained an advantage by breaking league rules and they should not profit from it.
It could also be argued that we were disadvantaged by their breach of the rules.
Maybe a compromise would be that their point is deducted from them and given to us?
Our rivals would be happier with that than if we got all 3 points and it would save the buggeration of having a replayed match.
Personally I would settle for us having their point, as we'd be back on top!
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 31, 2008 9:09:39 GMT
The Guardian: Wednesday to admit rules breach Alan Biggs Monday March 31, 2008 The Guardian Sheffield Wednesday will today admit to breaking Football League rules in Saturday's home game with Stoke City by including six loan players in their squad, one more than the permitted quota. However the Championship strugglers will plead to keep the point they gained against the second-placed club. Stoke are expected to lodge a complaint after the 1-1 draw which cost them top spot. Wednesday, whose equaliser was scored by Portsmouth's Franck Songo'o, one of their loanees, will own up to breaching the rules in talks with the league today. However they will also enter a strong plea of mitigation if Stoke seek to be awarded the three points. Wednesday can expect a fine at least, which was the punishment accepted by Leeds when they were charged with a similar offence last season and incurred a £1,000 penalty with a further £1,000 suspended. But Leeds' offence was arguably more serious in that they broke a secondary rule that allows only four loan players to be on the field. The Elland Road club had five on the pitch whereas Wednesday used only four. They will therefore argue that the result was not affected and that they are merely guilty of a technicality. The Guardian
|
|