|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 15:38:45 GMT
The facts weren't the same in that one, were they?
The 6th loanee was pulled out before the kick-off.
Pretty pointless comparison, on the face of it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2008 15:41:03 GMT
Winger, don't wish that on us all!! And I agree with the couple of posts above: Swansea (2005 Spinksy - Thanks for the rubbish research!) found their mistake early enough and corrected it themselves (and so were "let off with a warning") The Wendies didn't, and so should n't be let off. No precedent here! (but that is one against us - first one I have found. Leeds couldn't have a point deducted, as they lost their game) ah
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 15:41:30 GMT
The fact the club picked up the mistake themselves before the match on 1 March and then reported it to the League authorities, counted in their favour.
I don't think the Wednesday did, did they?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 15:42:23 GMT
If you read Nath's hyperlink/post.
You will see that there were 2 different cases.
One in 2003, and one in 2005.
The one in 2003 is VERY similiar to ours.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 15:42:36 GMT
ah,
The BBC suggests it was 2003, in fairness....
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 15:43:50 GMT
Even if I was a Wrexham fan, I'd struggle to make any case in that Swansea-Wrexham affair.
They actually were reduced to 4 subs BEFORE 3pm. If anything, Wrexham benefited by a Swansea admin cock-up which they put their hands up to pre kick--off.
Not exactly 'on all fours' with the Wednesday cheating, is it? ;D
|
|
|
Post by thingscouldbemarvellous on Mar 31, 2008 15:44:04 GMT
Brand new rule she says in there, so the rule maybe wasn't there in 2003, facts wrong by the look of things. Also, Swansea rectified their mistake in time and replaced the illegal player with a legitimate one before the game started, Wednesday did not. Their player was an available option to the manager for the entirety of the game.Therefore, the Swansea incident is on a far far smaller scale than this, and Wednesday should not be allowed to use the Swansea incident in their defence at all, simple. They don't have a leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 15:44:13 GMT
'The Swans realised their error before the game started and although Craig Stiens was named on the final teamsheet, he did not take his place on the bench.'
'Craig Stiens (Leeds Utd) was also on the bench, but played no part and was not considered by Flynn after the pre-kick-off warning'
It's the same incident they are referring to, it is just someone has their dates wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 15:45:05 GMT
Ohhhh I see ;D
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 15:47:44 GMT
FM has hit the nail on the head though.
It's a different case altogether.
Swansea didn't have an advantage, Sheffield Wednesday did.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2008 15:49:17 GMT
My apologies Spinksy ... case was 2003. And as said, Swansea caught their mistake and disadvantaged themselves. Nice try by the Senti VALE ... but it won't wash! ah
|
|
|
Post by thingscouldbemarvellous on Mar 31, 2008 15:51:11 GMT
Neither Swansea incident can be related to the Wednesday offence, on the face of things. Swansea dropped two bollocks before two seperate games and picked them up just in time, facing a fine each time, whereas Wednesday threw their bollocks out the window. At no point in either Swansea game was an illegal player at the managers disposal, and on Saturday - for 90 minutes - there was. No comparison.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 15:51:36 GMT
There's no precedent.
No side has gained an advantage following overlooking of this law.
What will also work against Wednesday is...
a) I don't believe they acknowledged the infringement
b) They had other options at their disposal.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 15:53:03 GMT
Another vital piece of "evidence" is that this is the THIRD time that this has happened, not the first, so there is no excuse.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 15:54:34 GMT
Wednesday have got to have their point chalked off at a bare minimum.
How and if they go about compensating Stoke will be interesting.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 16:14:43 GMT
Wednesday have got to have their point chalked off at a bare minimum. How and if they go about compensating Stoke will be interesting. If Wednesday are fined anymore than £500 there will be uproar from Wednesday fans. Compensating Stoke? Get real...
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 16:16:56 GMT
Why? You deserve to be docked that point as you've named an illegal matchday squad.
And why is compensating the side who have been penalised for abiding by rules so ludicrous?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 16:18:48 GMT
Fuck off Kivo, i'm sick off your petty nonsense.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 16:19:38 GMT
So, both Swansea and Leeds were fined for putting 5 loan players in their squad AND fielding more than 4 loan players on the pitch at any one time.
Yet you think Wednesday should be deducted a point AND Stoke should be GIVEN two points for breaking just one of the rules?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 16:20:49 GMT
Erm.
Yeah.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 16:21:53 GMT
Why? You deserve to be docked that point as you've named an illegal matchday squad. And why is compensating the side who have been penalised for abiding by rules so ludicrous? And you decide that do you? The two Leeds and Swansea precedents have both shown a small fine is in order, and that's all it will be. You're all clutching at straws.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Mar 31, 2008 16:22:19 GMT
Wednesday have got to have their point chalked off at a bare minimum. How and if they go about compensating Stoke will be interesting. If Wednesday are fined anymore than £500 there will be uproar from Wednesday fans. Compensating Stoke? Get real... If they fined Wednesday £500, basically they are giving the green light for the rest of us to use the full squad regardless of any 'technicalities' like the league rules. Us being compensated is far less likely but not beyond the realms of possibility.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 16:25:13 GMT
Why is that? You're not biased are you?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 16:25:40 GMT
Why? You deserve to be docked that point as you've named an illegal matchday squad. And why is compensating the side who have been penalised for abiding by rules so ludicrous? And you decide that do you? The two Leeds and Swansea precedents have both shown a small fine is in order, and that's all it will be. You're all clutching at straws. What's clear is that there is no direct precedent for these exact circumstances. Th Swansea affair is a total non-comparison - very shoddy from our local paper. And Leeds is a total non-comparison as they didn't benefit.
|
|
baddo
Youth Player
Posts: 455
|
Post by baddo on Mar 31, 2008 16:27:40 GMT
Wednesday should be punished in my opinion quite heavily....full stop.
Like many have said the football league will be giving the green light for other clubs to ignore rules and regulations to obtain an advantage for a small financial payment to the football league.
Can you Wednesday fans see that something must be done, and I am not talking about £500 quid here.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 16:28:12 GMT
Skivo.... I LIKE SEX!!! IS NICE!!!! Look, we're both fucking biased . But were not the ones "In the shit" are we .....
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 16:29:10 GMT
If Wednesday are fined anymore than £500 there will be uproar from Wednesday fans. Compensating Stoke? Get real... If they fined Wednesday £500, basically they are giving the green light for the rest of us to use the full squad regardless of any 'technicalities' like the league rules. Us being compensated is far less likely but not beyond the realms of possibility. Not really, it'd be about intent. Wednesday didn't 'intend' to break the rules, whereas any teams trying to do the same would be seen as 'deliberately breaking the law' e.g, if a player handles the ball a free-kick is given, but he's only given a yellow card if it's deliberate.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 16:30:39 GMT
Wednesday should be punished in my opinion quite heavily....full stop. Like many have said the football league will be giving the green light for other clubs to ignore rules and regulations to obtain an advantage for a small financial payment to the football league. Can you Wednesday fans see that something must be done, and I am not talking about £500 quid here. Absolutely, I would expect our CEO and team manager to offer their resignations. But the MAXIMUM punishment given for the two previous precedents so far has been a £500 fine. So to fine us any more or even DEDUCT points would be extremely harsh.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 16:30:58 GMT
Did Dicko deliberately try to snap that guy in half.
Of course not.
Besides, your the third team to have done this in recent years.....
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 16:32:38 GMT
Swansea fielded 6 loan players in their matchday 16, therefore broke the law, but weren't fined Leeds fielded 6 loan players in their matchday 16, therefore broke the law, and were fined £500. Wednesday fielded 6 loan players in their matchday 16, therefore broke the law
Swansea fielded 5 loan players on the pitch, therefore broke the law, but weren't fined Leeds fielded 5 loan players on the pitch, therefore broke the law, and were fined £500. Wednesday fielded 3 loan players on the pitch, therefore didn't break the law
As for arguing which is a clear precedent and which isn't, we could be here all day, there hasn't been an exact precedent and there never will be, but the Swansea and Leeds cases are the closest thing we've seen to what Wednesday have done so far.
|
|