|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 9:11:01 GMT
It's a farce if they get to keep the point.
Whether we should be awarded the points is a different matter altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 9:13:27 GMT
OF COURSE THE FUCKING RESULT WAS AFFECTED!!!!
THEY HAD A STRONGER SQUAD AT THEIR DISPOSAL.
AND THEIR FUCKING LOANEE SCORED, WHEN THEIR FUCKING OTHER LOANEE COME OFF THE FUCKING BENCH.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 9:14:49 GMT
It's far more than a "technical breach". How the hell can they claim that?
The game was materially altered by Laws having an illegal range of tactical options at his disposal (some of which he took) as a direct result of him having an ILLEGAL squad of 16 to direct throughout the 90 minutes.
There's no way they can keep the point they gained ILLEGALLY.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 9:15:43 GMT
But do you think we will get the points, FM?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 9:16:14 GMT
I think we should be awarded the points. 1-0, looking good. They bring their twathead loanee on, and ANOTHER loanee scores ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif)
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 31, 2008 9:22:22 GMT
The good thing is, if we do get awarded the victory, I am sure it will be a 3-0 win (as this is the usual scoreline awarded- e.g. Scotland v Estonia) which will improve our goal difference. Just imagine if we get the points!! I will be over the moon!!! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Mr Jon on Mar 31, 2008 9:23:04 GMT
SIOCH - I agree with you that we should have all 3 points. However knowing how the FA tend to fudge things then right now, as I said in my earlier post, I would settle for having their point given to us so that we gained 2 points from the game. Sadly, my gut feeling is that we'll be lucky to even get that
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 9:23:46 GMT
knowles,
It will be a huge bonus.
We then only have to win 2 games and get 2 draws for promotion, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 9:24:35 GMT
It would be fantastic Knowles, it's POSSIBLE, if unlikely as well ;D
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 9:25:25 GMT
I can't see any other way we can be said to be receiving any form of compensation for the wrong we've suffered as a direct result of an opponent tearing up the rule book?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 9:29:32 GMT
This has brought up a slight chink of light anyway.
I still don't understand why Laws could've missed this ;D
|
|
|
Post by fullerlegend on Mar 31, 2008 9:30:12 GMT
come on fa you shadie cunts give us our points baccck! ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif)
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 31, 2008 9:30:47 GMT
Exactly FM. With our current position, you just know that if we are not awarded the points then our hierarchy (chiefly Tony Scholes) will take it all the way
This truly is an incredible situation!!
|
|
|
Post by fullerlegend on Mar 31, 2008 9:31:19 GMT
OF COURSE THE FUCKING RESULT WAS AFFECTED!!!! THEY HAD A STRONGER SQUAD AT THEIR DISPOSAL. AND THEIR FUCKING LOANEE SCORED, WHEN THEIR FUCKING OTHER LOANEE COME OFF THE FUCKING BENCH. aha, true(Y) unless we dont get points and shoot kavangnah? im up for it ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif)
|
|
|
Post by adamsson on Mar 31, 2008 9:38:20 GMT
Wednesday did technically break the five loan players rule, however as two of the six players sat on the bench and took no part in the game it did not affect the result in anyway.
Stoke did have to leave out some of there loan players but this is the same every game we obeyed the rule it is a disadvantage of having a lot of loan players that only five are supposed to play a part in any game.
So what will happen
Sheffield Wednesday did break the five player rule and should be fined for this, they might suffer a points deduction as a deterrent to other clubs (and against a repeat) BUT the league is very reluctant to give points reductions.
What Stoke want to know is will they be awarded the 3 points, I cannot see this happening firstly because BOTH teams played four loan players the result was not affect by unused substitutes, secondly the other teams at the top would immediately protest and the whole promotion battle could end up in court being settled sometime around 2020
Also I note that Stoke reported this to the FA as soon as they failed to win!
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 9:41:14 GMT
They bought on Showumni though, who was one of 3 extra LOAN options on the bench!
He changed the game, and Songo'o,another loanee, scored .
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 9:43:42 GMT
As soon as golfers start a round with an extra club in the bag (whether they use it or not) they're in the shite.
Laws had an illegal range of options in his bag from the first minute on. I think it's irrelevant how many of them he decided to use.
|
|
|
Post by **** Pulling Himself Off on Mar 31, 2008 9:44:32 GMT
The fact that all 3 loanees on the bench didn't play is irrelevant.
They shouldn't have had 3 to choose from. Had they obeyed the law, Showumni might not been on the bench in the first place.
The had better options on their bench as a result of cheating, and hence gained an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 9:45:10 GMT
HAHA ,quality avatar FM.
|
|
|
Post by **** Pulling Himself Off on Mar 31, 2008 9:45:23 GMT
Fullermagic,
Beat me to it.
The major point here is the OPTIONS available to Sheff Wed as a result of the 6th player.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 9:46:08 GMT
The fact that all 3 loanees on the bench didn't play is irrelevant. They shouldn't have had 3 to choose from. Had they obeyed the law, Showumni might not been on the bench in the first place. The had better options on their bench as a result of cheating, and hence gained an advantage. That's what i was trying to convey. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif)
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 31, 2008 9:47:04 GMT
Exactly SIOCH.
If things remained how they were (1-0), they could have brought on Slusarski, and also if they were 2-1 up they had the option of bringing on holding midfielder Bolder.
We effectively had a 'dead' option- Buxton. TP (and all of us) would much have preferred to have Zakuani on the bench. However, we didn't as we adhered to the rules that were laid down at the beginning of the season
|
|
|
Post by cymap on Mar 31, 2008 9:49:54 GMT
Gallagher played for us in our last game but because of the loan rule was left out completely. Who is to say that Songo could have been a casualty of their choices like gallagher was a casulty of our choices?
|
|
|
Post by potters11 on Mar 31, 2008 9:54:41 GMT
I can't believe that some fans are just accpeting this...we have a case!
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 10:02:24 GMT
If Sheff Wed only escape with a fine.
The only winners are Sheff Wed.
2 point handout please. And a one point deduction for the twats from Hillsborough.
|
|
|
Post by markscfc72 on Mar 31, 2008 10:10:49 GMT
seems like they wont be able to do it again even if they wanted to!!
ENOCH RETURNS TO CITY Posted on: Mon 31 Mar 2008 Enoch Showunmi has chosen to return to Ashton Gate following a two-month loan spell at Sheffield Wednesday.
The big striker, who is out of contract in the summer, played 10 games for the Championship strugglers.
But after being used as a substitute in recent weeks, the forward has opted to return to City rather than extend his stay into a third month.
Manager Gary Johnson told bcfc.co.uk: "Enoch has decided to come back and he returns to us with some games under his belt."
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 10:21:14 GMT
I was just thinking, surely as Leeds did it recently(on a smaller scale as they lost ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif) , loanee didn't come on to effect the game, loanee didn't score equalising goal ), then a warning would have been sent out to other clubs to make sure this wouldn't happen again ! To me , Sheff Wed have ignored this warning/ rule, so should be punished HEAVILY, and we should be compensated HEAVILY.
|
|
|
Post by **** Pulling Himself Off on Mar 31, 2008 10:23:10 GMT
I think we should be awarded 15 points!
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 10:24:23 GMT
20 i feel kinder...
But 15 wouldn't be too bad i suppose, would get us promoted....
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 10:27:22 GMT
Before I start, i'll admit to being a Wednesday fan.
The Leeds precedent basically said that they were fined £500 for each of the rules that they broke - putting 6 loan players in their matchday 16 when you're only allowed 5 (which Wednesday did) and playing 5 loan players at any one time when you're only allowed 4 (which Wednesday didn't - at any one time they only fielded 3).
So in priciple here, Wednesday should be fined £500 for breaking the first rule and that should be it all done and dusted.
To claim we should have a point DEDUCTED is to be quite frank, extraordinary, and to claim that Stoke should be given an extra two points is well, laughable.
Some of your arguments -
If you'd have put 6 loan players in your 16 you'd have had a better chance of winning. True, only a slight chance of it happening but true. But then you'd be up for a FL investigation too.
The player that scored shouldn't have been on the pitch. Of all the loan players we have, he would have been the first one picked, so no argument.
Stoke should be able to field as many loan players as you want if Wednesday's punishment is 'only' a fine. Well, if you did, you'd be doing it on purpose whereas Wednesday did it by accident (or rather, the fookwittery of our management staff and CEO). You'd be up for a much harsher punishment.
Also, you have to ask how Stoke were allowed two 'emergency' loans in Ameobi and Pearson, despite there being no apparent injury crisis and Stoke being top of the league.
|
|