|
|
Post by rambo61 on Aug 14, 2015 20:14:32 GMT
Look on the bright side. We have now sold out at spuds and the prospect of a debut at the brit!!Personally conna wait for tomorrow!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Aug 14, 2015 20:15:22 GMT
I'm gutted, was looking forward to seeing the lad in action, On a positive note, he gets to kick off his Stoke career at home in front of the faithful, he will be more fired up. He'll make his debut away at Norwich next weekend yes, Norwich will be his first official debut, then West Brazil his first home debut. |
|
|
|
Post by petemac on Aug 14, 2015 20:22:01 GMT
He'll make his debut away at Norwich next weekend yes, Norwich will be his first official debut, then West Brazil his first home debut. Yes sorry was getting ahead of myself |
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Aug 14, 2015 20:22:26 GMT
yes, Norwich will be his first official debut, then West Brazil his first home debut. Yes sorry was getting ahead of myself Lol, me too. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchie on Aug 14, 2015 20:23:38 GMT
i personally think we should be fighting this till the eleventh hour its a totally farcical situation that a player has to serve a ban for a yellow card given 6 months ago
|
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Aug 14, 2015 20:24:00 GMT
yes, Norwich will be his first official debut, then West Brazil his first home debut. Yes sorry was getting ahead of myself No need to apologise ma mate. |
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Aug 14, 2015 20:26:17 GMT
i personally think we should be fighting this till the eleventh hour its a totally farcical situation that a player has to serve a ban for a yellow card given 6 months ago FA corrupt has ever. Wonder how much that wanker Levy has paid Mr Dyke |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 14, 2015 20:29:41 GMT
Once again the thick brown envelope works it's magic. This time with a a North London post mark. It stinks and as somebody said earlier how the fuck did QPr get away with loaning Barton to Marseille for his ten game ban.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 14, 2015 20:31:30 GMT
I have to disagree Paul. I don't think it's setting a dangerous precedent at all. Shaqiri's ban was competition specific and this in itself negates any club trying to switch their bans around as they would run straight into that brick wall at the very first moment. This ban was to be served specifically and ONLY in one competition. Furthermore, if we (the FA) now want to apply the ban to a league game then it could be argued that one one of the league games in which Shaqiri didn't play for Inter towards the end of last season covers the ban. I don't see how it doesn't in fact, if we're applying the criteria we are to this situation. There is no possibility on this planet that one of the bigger clubs would have this done to them and their record signing. No chance whatsoever. That's one of the things that really stinks about this whole thing. Remember when Wayne Rooney was sent off in that World Cup qualifier? This same FA fought tooth and nail to get his (deserved) ban reduced or overturned. They fight when it suits them. It sets a huge precedent Smudge. The original suspension is for a one match ban, that one match ban was still on his shoulders when we signed him. It's completely irrelevant how the Italian FA impose those bans, we're talking about two completely different FA's here with their own rules and in this country the ban applies to the next game the player is available for, regardless of the competition. If the ban had been carried over to the Luton game, then the next time ANY player was sent off in a cup game in England, then their club would argue that a precedent had been set and as a result, would argue that their player shouldn't be suspended until their next cup match as well. Surely that's fairly easily rebuffed by the fact that sanctions in England are not competition-specific? In Italy they are, hence the exception (hypothetically) made. Doesn't seem like an equivalent scenario which would set a precedent to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Aug 14, 2015 20:40:36 GMT
Absolute bastard disgrace from the FA.Hughes must be fuming along with Coates.
The only slight consolation is he'll have a full weeks training ahead of the Norwich game.
Also the people that said they only bought a ticket because of Shaqiri,really?You support Stoke City not Shaqiri.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 20:42:49 GMT
Gutted.
Stats should not carry over if a player signs for a new club, fucking stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 14, 2015 20:46:23 GMT
It sets a huge precedent Smudge. The original suspension is for a one match ban, that one match ban was still on his shoulders when we signed him. It's completely irrelevant how the Italian FA impose those bans, we're talking about two completely different FA's here with their own rules and in this country the ban applies to the next game the player is available for, regardless of the competition. If the ban had been carried over to the Luton game, then the next time ANY player was sent off in a cup game in England, then their club would argue that a precedent had been set and as a result, would argue that their player shouldn't be suspended until their next cup match as well. Surely that's fairly easily rebuffed by the fact that sanctions in England are not competition-specific? In Italy they are, hence the exception (hypothetically) made. Doesn't seem like an equivalent scenario which would set a precedent to me. I'm not with you PL. Are you seriously suggesting, that the specific rulings of individual leagues across Europe on player suspensions should supersede our own rulings when a player from that league is transferred in? So we could have numerous different rulings being applied to all Premier League matches during and after the transfer window? It would create complete turmoil. We've got a set of rules here that apply to every player REGARDLESS of which league they played in before, one rule for one, one rule for all. But we've got Stokies wanting the rules to be bent just to suit us - it's everything we complain about when it comes to the top clubs! If we were playing Watford at home tomorrow and had ManU at home in the cup nobody would be making a song and dance now. What happens if we sign another star player from Italy in January who had a cup suspension and our first game after his signing is an easy home league game but our next cup game is the League Cup Semi final, would we want the precedent to work the same way then? I wonder ... |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 14, 2015 20:46:59 GMT
Bollocks to this. Wasn't going but bought a ticket due to the Shaq effect. I went to Bury once just to see Kyle Lightbourne's debut only for him to be missing with blood poisoning. Typical. You got to see David Xuasa's debut though. What more do you want man? |
|
|
|
Post by crouchie on Aug 14, 2015 20:48:57 GMT
its a competion specific ban for coppa italia, there should be no precedent for banning him for a premier league match even more so for the next bleedin season
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Aug 14, 2015 20:55:47 GMT
Bollocks to this. Wasn't going but bought a ticket due to the Shaq effect. I went to Bury once just to see Kyle Lightbourne's debut only for him to be missing with blood poisoning. Typical. You got to see David Xuasa's debut though. What more do you want man? Good old Kamara  we ran out of X's when he signed as well  |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 14, 2015 20:55:56 GMT
It sets a huge precedent Smudge. The original suspension is for a one match ban, that one match ban was still on his shoulders when we signed him. It's completely irrelevant how the Italian FA impose those bans, we're talking about two completely different FA's here with their own rules and in this country the ban applies to the next game the player is available for, regardless of the competition. If the ban had been carried over to the Luton game, then the next time ANY player was sent off in a cup game in England, then their club would argue that a precedent had been set and as a result, would argue that their player shouldn't be suspended until their next cup match as well. Surely that's fairly easily rebuffed by the fact that sanctions in England are not competition-specific? In Italy they are, hence the exception (hypothetically) made. Doesn't seem like an equivalent scenario which would set a precedent to me. Even if you can make a case for the FA altering the way its applies foreign imposed sanctions to mirror the rules of the Association where the ban was imposed (in this case Italy) rather than the way it is done in this country, you can't make a case for doing so on the hoof for one particular player. The irony of this debate is that some posters are arguing that Stoke have been discriminated against (which we haven't) whereas in reality what they are suggesting is that the discrimination should be in our favour. We musn't let our understandable disappointment that he isn't playing tomorrow, having been led to believe that he was available, cloud our logic and lead us to make unsustainable suggestions. If the club had announced when we signed him that he wasn't available for this game, very few posters would have batted an eyelid or argued the toss on the suspension rules. |
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on Aug 14, 2015 20:58:04 GMT
Probably better we did find out NOW and not run the risk of him playing in a winning team at Spuds followed by the inevitable points deduction.
Who knows, we might even win without him, in which case we keep the three points and keep him fit for his match winning contribution in his debut at Norwich.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Aug 14, 2015 20:58:59 GMT
I still can't fathom how this only came out this afternoon.
|
|
|
|
Post by petemac on Aug 14, 2015 21:00:02 GMT
Probably better we did find out NOW and not run the risk of him playing in a winning team at Spuds followed by the inevitable points deduction. Who knows, we might even win without him, in which case we keep the three points and keep him fit for his match winning contribution in his debut at Norwich. Yep |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Aug 14, 2015 21:03:31 GMT
I still can't fathom how this only came out this afternoon. Exactly as it was international clearance that was said to have held up the announcement in the first place. Unless of course that was plain wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 21:08:04 GMT
I still can't fathom how this only came out this afternoon. I wonder if he will mysteriously turn up in the starting eleven following a late, successful appeal? |
|
|
|
Post by petemac on Aug 14, 2015 21:09:15 GMT
I still can't fathom how this only came out this afternoon. I wonder if he will mysteriously turn up in the starting eleven following a late, successful appeal? Would be ace!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hooftastic on Aug 14, 2015 21:10:10 GMT
Punish him as intended? Miss the Luton game. So you don't think that would set a massive (and potentially chaotic) precedent for the future? Why? Barton was punished in France as per the English FAs intention. In Italy he'd have missed a cup game, transfer the Italian punishment to England would seem pretty logical. Bet Dyke couldn't believe it when he could put his 'interpretation' on this one. We've not experienced his fuckwittery since Juan 'first American to not get a permit' Agudelo. |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Aug 14, 2015 21:10:22 GMT
So, in essence, a 1 match ban for a (relatively) less important cup game (in Italy), is through the majestic wisdom of our questionable FA, transformed into a ban for a highly important PL game, when in a matter of 2/3 weeks it could have reasonably and fairly applied to a cup game here.
We seem to have ample evidence of rules-based accepting sheep on here, of an illogical process dreamt up by an often incompetent FA. Ever heard of protest? That's how things change. SCFC should have appealed the decision, we should have raised a challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Aug 14, 2015 21:11:19 GMT
I wonder if he will mysteriously turn up in the starting eleven following a late, successful appeal? Would be ace!!! Then he could replace SJW in the 80th minute  |
|
|
|
Post by adamsson on Aug 14, 2015 21:11:40 GMT
Surely that's fairly easily rebuffed by the fact that sanctions in England are not competition-specific? In Italy they are, hence the exception (hypothetically) made. Doesn't seem like an equivalent scenario which would set a precedent to me. Even if you can make a case for the FA altering the way its applies foreign imposed sanctions to mirror the rules of the Association where the ban was imposed (in this case Italy) rather than the way it is done in this country, you can't make a case for doing so on the hoof for one particular player. The irony of this debate is that some posters are arguing that Stoke have been discriminated against (which we haven't) whereas in reality what they are suggesting is that the discrimination should be in our favour. We musn't let our understandable disappointment that he isn't playing tomorrow, having been led to believe that he was available, cloud our logic and lead us to make unsustainable suggestions. If the club had announced when we signed him that he wasn't available for this game, very few posters would have batted an eyelid or argued the toss on the suspension rules. Yep fine, just name two other similar cases and you will have my full agreement |
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Aug 14, 2015 21:12:27 GMT
This is fucking stupid... I'm sorry but the mere fact it was due to a cup competition then sanctioned against league play smells of corruption at the highest levels lol
Does the FA really think the Italian cup equivalent is an away day at Spurs? Fucking muppets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 14, 2015 21:15:38 GMT
So you don't think that would set a massive (and potentially chaotic) precedent for the future? Why? Barton was punished in France as per the English FAs intention. In Italy he'd have missed a cup game, transfer the Italian punishment to England would seem pretty logical. Bet Dyke couldn't believe it when he could put his 'interpretation' on this one. We've not experienced his fuckwittery since Juan 'first American to not get a permit' Agudelo. Have you read my posts above? I don't think transferring the Italian punishment to England (on the hoof) is even remotely 'logical'. I don't want to bore people by repeating what I've posted earlier but if you want to quote any of that and argue the point, I'm sure I'll come back to you. |
|
|
|
Post by chopperscfc on Aug 14, 2015 21:18:41 GMT
This has gutted me  |
|
|
|
Post by crouchie on Aug 14, 2015 21:23:23 GMT
So, in essence, a 1 match ban for a (relatively) less important cup game (in Italy), is through the majestic wisdom of our questionable FA, transformed into a ban for a highly important PL game, when in a matter of 2/3 weeks it could have reasonably and fairly applied to a cup game here. We seem to have ample evidence of rules-based accepting sheep on here, of an illogical process dreamt up by an often incompetent FA. Ever heard of protest? That's how things change. SCFC should have appealed the decision, we should have raised a challenge. exactly the italian fa did not deem it serious enough to ban him for a serie a game but 6 months later our fa apparently deem it serious enough to ban him for a premier league game, bullshit of the highest order |
|
we ran out of X's when he signed as well 
