|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Mar 31, 2008 10:27:55 GMT
Potters11 Its not a case of accepting its happened. Shit happens, thats football. The fact is we should have beaten a shit team with their shit laonees and we did'nt. Yeah ok The Wendy's broke the rules and they will be punished, either a fine or 1 point deduction but if you think they are going to give as all 3 points you're deluding yourself. Just think of the outcry and lawsuits this would provoke in Brazil and Hell. Lets not get too far up our own jacksies here, we have transgressed a few rules and indeed laws of the land, ourselves recently (bottle throwing, pitch incursions and assaulting an opposition player) and we got off fairly lightly. I didn't notice anyone on here then calling for US to be docked points. I can't see how squealing about it being unfair is going to help us, it just makes us sound like a bunch of Jessies. Lets get over it and concentrate on Palace.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 31, 2008 10:28:46 GMT
If they want to compensate us but not award us points, how about giving us the £35,000,000 it'd cost us?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 10:30:20 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 t.o 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. ;D ;D ;D GOING DOWN ,GOING DOWN ,GOING DOWN.
|
|
|
Post by potters11 on Mar 31, 2008 10:31:28 GMT
thetorch: I don't think that we will get the 3 points....but it does just seem very unfair that one team kept to the rules and one didn't. At the very least Wednesday should have their point wiped off, how they can justify keeping that point?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 10:32:58 GMT
Leeds is no kind of precedent really though, is it?
Burnley didn't suffer and Leeds didn't gain. Stoke did suffer and Wednesday gained.
Chalk and cheese.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 31, 2008 10:34:07 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 t.o 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. ;D ;D ;D GOING DOWN ,GOING DOWN ,GOING DOWN. Oh dear. £500? You must be truly deluded. Leeds got that punishment because the FA are always soft on Bates and Leeds but also because they lost. In your case, you gained a point and your scorer was one of the infamous six - therefore you gained a point by unfair means. The very least that should happen is that that point should be deducted. You're really clutching at straws aren't you? Worried that this might finish you off?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 10:35:10 GMT
Also, fining leeds was supposed to be a warning to other clubs. And you've gone and done it all over again , but only worse ;D I think you will be lucky to escape with this. As for us, doubt we will get any compensation. But there is always a slight chance
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Mar 31, 2008 10:38:17 GMT
I agree mate I just don't see how that will help us. The irony is, and I'm sure everyone in the division will see it, that Stoke are complaing about someone else manipulating the loan system, when we have probably made the most use of the 'emergency' loan system as anyone (albeit legally). On reflection I'd have taken a point at Sheffield, its the four we dropped at home to Burnley and Blackpool (when all the others round us dropped points) that might ultimately shaft us. Still plenty to play for though.
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 31, 2008 10:42:14 GMT
If they take the point away from Wednesday, it will mean that effectively the game was played for jsut one point to play for.
We all know that a game is played for either 3 points (a win) or 2 points (draw). Surely this is backtracking on league rules too?
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 10:43:50 GMT
Also, fining leeds was supposed to be a warning to other clubs. And you've gone and done it all over again , but only worse ;D I think you will be lucky to escape with this. As for us, doubt we will get any compensation. But there is always a slight chance Worse? They broke two rules, we broke one? And to suggest we gained an advantage out of having a man sat on a bench is indeed clutching at straws! How about gaining an advantage from having 2 players on the field that should have been sent off? (Ameobi and the thug at left-back). Face it, we are truly shit, going down, yet you're top of the league and couldn't beat us? And it's all down to us having a naughty man sat on the bench?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 10:47:43 GMT
^^^^ Gayboy from Sheffield Alert.... Sent off ;D, just strong challenges. You aren't allowed to touch the opposition player anymore , as for the Shawcross challenge of Fanny Jeffers which Wednesday fans keep crying over, my 3 year old cousin could snap him in two, he broke to the sound of Delilah, not Ryans studs. As for the loan player scandal, lets see what happens, i can't be bothered to argue anymore
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 10:50:27 GMT
^^^^ Gayboy from Sheffield Alert.... Sent off ;D, just strong challenges. You aren't allowed to touch the opposition player anymore , as for the Shawcross challenge of Fanny Jeffers, my 3 year old cousin could snap him in two, he broke to the sound of Delilah, not Ryans studs. As for the loan player scandal, lets see what happens, i can't be bothered to argue anymore You've been arguing? And here's me thinking you were resorting to petty name-calling... When you think about it really, who's more in the wrong - The Wednesday player sat on the bench who's breaking the rules because he's on loan OR The Stoke player on the PITCH who's breaking the rules because he nearly broke someone's leg?
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 31, 2008 10:50:29 GMT
Just think - if we get a point rewarded, our rivals have shot themselves in the foot. After all, Showumni was from Bristol and Slusarski from Brazil ;D
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Mar 31, 2008 10:55:28 GMT
"When you think about it really, who's more in the wrong - The Wednesday player sat on the bench who's breaking the rules because he's on loan OR The Stoke player on the PITCH who's breaking the rules because he nearly broke someone's leg?" Erm, I think Brian Laws. The referee saw the Dickinson tackle and gave a yellow - reckless though it was a red would have been harsh. The fact is, as the form table shows (you are 7th from last 8 games), your loan players have made a great deal of difference to your team. It's given you options and a bit of strength in depth. Laws obviously thinks so, he chose not to include a reserve goalkeeper on Saturday, such was your embarrassment of riches.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 10:58:53 GMT
"When you think about it really, who's more in the wrong - The Wednesday player sat on the bench who's breaking the rules because he's on loan OR The Stoke player on the PITCH who's breaking the rules because he nearly broke someone's leg?" Erm, I think Brian Laws. The fact is, as the form table shows (you are 7th from last 8 games), your loan players have made a great deal of difference to your team. It's given you options and a bit of strength in depth. Laws obviously thinks so, he chose not to include a reserve goalkeeper on Saturday, such was your embarrassment of riches. ;D Sahar - Scored a goal in a 2-2 draw. Kavanagh - Been poor since joining Bolder - Been worse than Kavanagh Songo'o - Looks pretty decent, good goal on Saturday - 1st loan player on the team sheet ATM Slusarski - Not yet played Showunmi - Been worse than Slusarski
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 11:00:41 GMT
"When you think about it really, who's more in the wrong - The Wednesday player sat on the bench who's breaking the rules because he's on loan OR The Stoke player on the PITCH who's breaking the rules because he nearly broke someone's leg?" Erm, I think Brian Laws. The fact is, as the form table shows (you are 7th from last 8 games), your loan players have made a great deal of difference to your team. It's given you options and a bit of strength in depth. Laws obviously thinks so, he chose not to include a reserve goalkeeper on Saturday, such was your embarrassment of riches. ;D Sahar - Scored a goal in a 2-2 draw. Kavanagh - Been poor since joining Bolder - Been worse than Kavanagh Songo'o - Looks pretty decent, good goal on Saturday - 1st loan player on the team sheet ATM Slusarski - Not yet played Showunmi - Been worse than Slusarski Promising for the rest of the season then
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Mar 31, 2008 11:08:00 GMT
;D So why the fcuk are you bottom 3? ...and how the fcuk did we let Kavanagh run the game on Saturday?
|
|
|
Post by jemma1989 on Mar 31, 2008 11:20:07 GMT
to the people moaning saying we sound like school kids etc. do you want us to stay in this league? you sound like you want us to fail!!!! what if we were in their position and they fielded 6 loan players, would you want the extra points then? I think so. shut up and be happy with what you get, few cheeky points aint gonna hurt.....us
|
|
|
Post by jemma1989 on Mar 31, 2008 11:25:51 GMT
and that sheffield wednesday idiot kivo, leave dicko alone, he;s not a thug, he's a footballer.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 31, 2008 11:26:32 GMT
a get out clause would be for the league to assign "certain referees" to our next 5 games and our rivals to ensure we get the required results to stop them having to make a hard decision ;D
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 11:30:00 GMT
Loved the little chant of DICKO, DICKO, DICKO! On saturday as well ;D Next time Dicko, break his ankle
|
|
|
Post by jemma1989 on Mar 31, 2008 11:39:58 GMT
awww dicko's ace. rather have him at left back than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 31, 2008 11:47:58 GMT
Just how many extra permatations does it give to a team that has an extra loanee "even on the bench" when it comes to making tactical decisions during the course of a match?.
Quite simply Sheffield Wednesday should lose their point that they so illegally gained and Stoke should be awarded those extra 2 points. Will it happen? will it fuck, because those at the FA have not got the fuckin bollocks due to the ruckus this would bring to almost every club in the Championship.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 11:49:45 GMT
Just how many extra permatations does it give to a team that has an extra loanee "even on the bench" when it comes to making tactical decisions during the course of a match?. Quite simply Sheffield Wednesday should lose their point that they so illegally gained and Stoke should be awarded those extra 2 points. Will it happen? will it fuck, because those at the FA have not got the fuckin bollocks due to the ruckus this would bring to almost every club in the Championship. *nods head definantly*
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 31, 2008 11:56:17 GMT
One day the FA will come a cropper and will be sued to high heaven because quite frankly these billionaires/still wanna make money people that are now coming into this beautiful game of fucked up football will relish the challenge in proving to them that rules have indeed being broken.
|
|
|
Post by twitters on Mar 31, 2008 11:56:52 GMT
I'll confess to being a Vale fan as well, but I think the FA's outcome should be simple.
Sheffield Wednesday gained a point by fielding an ineligable side, and so that point should be taken away from them. Leeds gained no points from this so should have no points taken away.
The Wendies knew the rules before hand and so "fookwittery" isn't a valid excuse. If it was, then Vale should campaign to have our points back for every game Craig Rocastle played in, thanks to the "fookwittery" Martin Foyle showed in signing him!
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 12:01:38 GMT
I'll confess to being a Vale fan as well, but I think the FA's outcome should be simple. Sheffield Wednesday gained a point by fielding an ineligable side, and so that point should be taken away from them. Leeds gained no points from this so should have no points taken away. The Wendies knew the rules before hand and so "fookwittery" isn't a valid excuse. I'll confess to having a soft spot for the Vale. I think we have a good case here, IF the world is fair, which it is isn't, Wednesday would have their point stripped and it would be handed to us. I think there is a good chance that they will have a point deducted though, as the Leeds scenario should've really set an example.
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 31, 2008 12:03:36 GMT
Tazi- you have hit the nail on the head
|
|
|
Post by eddyclamp on Mar 31, 2008 12:15:46 GMT
So,to sumarise then.The Owls are a bunch of cheating bastards .
|
|
|
Post by ricksastokie on Mar 31, 2008 12:16:20 GMT
I was just thinking, surely as Leeds did it recently(on a smaller scale as they lost , 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. SIOCH is nearly right with this comment. Surely once Leeds had set the precedent for this rule breaking the FA should have reviewed the incident and written specific rules and subsequent punishment for it. They could have removed all doubt about what would happen if this law breaking happened again but no they leave themselves exposed to making a decision that either Stoke or Sheffield Wednesday or the rest of the Championship or any combination of the three will not be happy about. You just know that whatever they decide one or more party will cry foul.
|
|