Premier League double standards

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

cooperblade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
3,150
Reaction score
4,835
Wolves fined for fielding weakened team v Man U.

Did Man U and Liverpool get fined at the end of 2006/07?
 

Really? I can't see anything on the BBC about this.

Would very much like to read the justification. It just can't stack up.

:(
 
That's ridiculous.

I'm so glad that we're doing our best to ensure we don't go up this year.

I hope McCarthy makes a point of doing this again.
 
It's a £25k suspended fine.

Ridiculous decision still in my opinion.

BUT, it has now set a precedent, and hopefully will see the top teams stop fielding weakened teams
 
If thats the case its an absolutely disgusting decision. The man is entitled to choose whatever team he sees fit, thats what a squad is for!

They're his players and they're registered PL players. So is the PL suggesting that the eleven players that took to the field against Man U, should not be eligible despite allowing them to be registered for selection?! I also find it incredibly insulting towards the selected players, who Mick McCarthy might well deem to be up to PL standard and more than capable of holding their own.

Absolutely stinks and yet again another example of looking after/ appeasing the big clubs. I still cant believe this can be true. If it is, its an absolutely appauling mis-carriage of justice and I hope Wolves fight it to the bitter end. Wolves have basically been punished for playing within the rules, whether it be considered moral/ethical or whatever. I would imagine they could pursue legal action against that for unfair treatment by the governing body. I'm stunned :eek:
 
what a load of bollox. strongest team possible would mean teams like man u shouldnt rest players for big match's
 
Quite. In future, manager's of teams outside the 'chosen few' will just have to be cuter and cite the old 'injury' excuse - much like the big teams do before a meaningless international.

The Premier League is corrupt.
 
It's such as shame that success for United in the Championship involves getting promoted to the Corrupt-a-ship. What a joke decision.
 
Not strictly true.

The rules are, you must play your strongest team available.

And Mick McCarthy felt that was his strongest team for that game. Who can prove otherwise? Its a matter of opinion, so the basis to their decision is flawed to begin with.

If that was the case the top 4 sides have broken this 'rule' on more occasions than I care to remember.
 
It's a £25k suspended fine.

Ridiculous decision still in my opinion.

BUT, it has now set a precedent, and hopefully will see the top teams stop fielding weakened teams

Can'e see a 25K suspended fine stopping anything. Even it wasn't suspended 25k probably equates to about 4 days wages for one player of the "Big" clubs.
 

If that was the case the top 4 sides have broken this 'rule' on more occasions than I care to remember.
I agree, and thats why this could be a good thing. Wolves have now been punished for it, so hopefully now the 'big four' won't get away with it anymore.....
Can'e see a 25K suspended fine stopping anything. Even it wasn't suspended 25k probably equates to about 4 days wages for one player of the "Big" clubs.

I'm not talking about the size of the fine, but the fact that someone has been punished for it now.
 
"I agree, and thats why this could be a good thing. Wolves have now been punished for it, so hopefully now the 'big four' won't get away with it anymore....."

I completely understand your point Robbie and a well made one it is too.....

But what i'm saying is, there is nothing to punish here. No one can prove that Mick McCarthy didnt feel that was his strongest team on the day. Even if he intimated slightly that he rested eleven in advance of the Burnley game, he could counter any argument by saying that he didnt think that eleven would have been up to it against Man U.....

Yes, we know why he did it but no one has the right to say that wasnt his strongest team on the night, neither can they prove it. I know im ranting a bit but I feel quite strongly about this. What he did is not an offence as far as im concerned and it should not be punished. If he plays a weakened side and it affects other teams, tough shit - my advice to the teams complaining about it would be that they 'win their games' and then they wouldnt have to worry about it.

Its beyond me, it really is :confused:
 
Does this mean the likes of Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Drogba, Torres etc etc......who are arguably the best players in the Premier League should never be on the bench or not play in a league game again unless injured? In order for them to field there strongest team, surely these players would need to be in the starting 11?
 
Sorry Lou but I totally disagree. This article highlights that two of the worst instances of rule-breaking came in games which assisted Fulham and West Ham in finishing above us. If the Premier League had followed their own rule book and punished Liverpool (as they have Wolves), then Man Utd might have been compelled to play a stronger team against West Ham.

You can't overemphasise the devastating effect that relegation has had on the Blades and partly because the Premier League were happy to cowtow to two of their main cash cows Liverpool and Man Utd. It is too much to ask that The Premier League enforces their rules for ALL clubs not just those they don't care about? All we wanted was a level playing field.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...hiefs-must-now-get-tough-with-the-big-four.do
 
Does this mean the likes of Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Drogba, Torres etc etc......who are arguably the best players in the Premier League should never be on the bench or not play in a league game again unless injured? In order for them to field there strongest team, surely these players would need to be in the starting 11?

Agree with the sentiment.

The rule is unworkable given the huge numbers of games played in a season. It clearly needs to be more nuanced, because we cannot get away from the reason the rule exists. But short of reducing the season and increasing the gaps between games, I struggle to suggest anything practical or non-subjective.

:(
 
Agree with the sentiment.
The rule is unworkable given the huge numbers of games played in a season. It clearly needs to be more nuanced, because we cannot get away from the reason the rule exists. But short of reducing the season and increasing the gaps between games, I struggle to suggest anything practical or non-subjective. :(

There's no better rule than common sense. Everyone with an interest in football knows Liverpool, Man Utd and Wolves played severely weakened teams, thereby breaking the rules and skewing the fairness of the competition.

I would set up a "weakened teams adjudication panel" to review any complaints made by affected parties. The pre-determined punishment options should include points deduction along with financial penalties.
 
Sorry Lou but I totally disagree. This article highlights that two of the worst instances of rule-breaking came in games which assisted Fulham and West Ham in finishing above us. If the Premier League had followed their own rule book and punished Liverpool (as they have Wolves), then Man Utd might have been compelled to play a stronger team against West Ham.

You can't overemphasise the devastating effect that relegation has had on the Blades and partly because the Premier League were happy to cowtow to two of their main cash cows Liverpool and Man Utd. It is too much to ask that The Premier League enforces their rules for ALL clubs not just those they don't care about? All we wanted was a level playing field.

Sothall, although I appreciate the sentiments behind what you’re saying (I know it’s in the name of fair play) my point still stands that you cannot dictate another team's selection policy. The whole point of sport is to allow individuals/teams to compete to the best of their ability. By resting players, a football manager deems this to be advantageous to themselves and in Wolves’ case a chance to prevent injury to key players before a crucial game towards their PL survival. This is their way of competing at the top level.

Suppose he sends out his (arguably) best 11 against Man U and instead of resting them, tells them to take it easy and not go all out (giving them a chance to be fit for the next game). Is that immoral as well? If so, how do you prove it? You’re then sending out 11 of your best players, but they’re not trying as hard as say – a second eleven would. The point I am trying to make is that it’s all a matter of opinion and his ‘best’ eleven for that particular game cannot be defined by anyone other than the manager. Mick McCarthy did not set out to cheat other clubs, he set out to do his best for Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club and as far as a neutral can be, I 100% back his decision.

The example you used in your post is one that ‘supposedly’ cost our beloved club its top flight status. The fact that the final league standings were to our displeasure does not mean that we were ‘cheated’ by other clubs. I have said countless times that the Blades had survival in their own hands and could have stayed up quite easily, irrespective of what other clubs were doing. The fact is our manager and some of the players bottled it. That’s why we got relegated and you can blame anyone else you like – the truth is in the mirror.

Are we forgetting about the fact that Warnock rested players in important games that season? I seem to remember him resting 2 or 3 key players for a home match against Arsenal , as we had a winnable home game the following week. Does the fact that we won that game make our manager’s conduct acceptable? Strangely Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool etc. didn’t complain about that fixture. He also did this when we played away to Man U, so sorry – you can’t have it both ways.

I agree that the rules and enforcement of, should be the same for all clubs and as this has set a precedent I want to see it enforced on the big four as well in future. Sadly you will never see a level playing field because as touched on by almost everyone here the PL will manipulate different situations to suit their favoured clubs.
 
Sorry but resting 2 or 3 players (as most clubs including us have done) is vastly different to making between 7 and 11 changes as Liverpool, Man Utd and Wolves did in the examples provided earlier.

An impartial panel can just as easily review and punish that level of rule-breaking as it can an off-the-ball elbowing or stamp, which they do all the time.

I'm tired of hearing (mostly from West Ham fans) that if we'd drawn with Wigan, we would have stayed up. If other teams has adhered to the rules and the Premier League had enforced them, the result against Wigan wouldn't have mattered.

We didn't have the unfair advantages of an ill-gotten World-class striker and reserve-team opposition enjoyed by our rivals.
 
Sooo... now that Wolves have been fined for breaking the rules. Did the punishment fit the crime? Was a fine enough? What happens if they stay up and say....West Ham go down because of this? West Ham could sue right? But they wouldn't as all their fans said thats just whinging.

And technically with this precedent now set, all the other teams have that always play their best team will be doing so to avoid a fine and this could be seen as 3rd party involvement in team selection.... oooh its complicated
 
Liverpool weren't quite as bad as Wolves...

Liverpool Line-up and appearances that season (out of 38)
Reina 35
Arbeloa 9
Paletta 3
Hyypia 23
Insua 2
Pennant 34
Alonso 32
Sissoko 16
Gonzalez 25
Fowler 16
Bellamy 27

Finnan 33
El Zhar 3
Kewell 2

which means on average those players played in 62% of all Liverpool games that season.

Wolves appearances (out of 25)
Hahnemann 12
Elokobi 13
Zubar 10
Hill 2
Mancienne 21
Friend 1
Foley 12
Surman 7
Halford 13
Castillo 8
Maierhofer 8

Jarvis 23
Jones 7
Iwelumo 8

which is just 52% on average.

I just thought it would be interesting to see which crime was worse. Doesn't excuse Liverpool though.
 
I would set up a "weakened teams adjudication panel" to review any complaints made by affected parties. The pre-determined punishment options should include points deduction along with financial penalties.

I agree, having some unbiased ex-pros on a panel would be a good way forward. I'd see it being something like Phil Thompson, Lou Macari, Frank McLintock alongside Tony Cottee, Trevor Brooking and Alf Garnett.

:rolleyes:
 
Sorry but resting 2 or 3 players (as most clubs including us have done) is vastly different to making between 7 and 11 changes as Liverpool, Man Utd and Wolves did in the examples provided earlier.

An impartial panel can just as easily review and punish that level of rule-breaking as it can an off-the-ball elbowing or stamp, which they do all the time.

I'm tired of hearing (mostly from West Ham fans) that if we'd drawn with Wigan, we would have stayed up. If other teams has adhered to the rules and the Premier League had enforced them, the result against Wigan wouldn't have mattered.

We didn't have the unfair advantages of an ill-gotten World-class striker and reserve-team opposition enjoyed by our rivals.

I felt as strongly as you just after we went down Sothall, but i'm afraid you're bleeting mate. West Ham did cheat the system, no doubt about it and they should have been punished more severely at the time. However the point that you tire of hearing is true im afraid.

As I said before IT WAS IN OUR HANDS! We were tasked with beating a very lacklustre Wigan side at home and we simply bottled it. If you rightly remember we soundly beat West Ham (complete with Tevez) 3-0 at home a few weeks earlier and moved an insumountable number of points ahead of them so how did we let that lead slip?

It shouldnt have mattered what anyone else was doing because we were in the driving seat. So are we to say that reserve team players and non-regulars should never play a PL game because it might affect someone else? Get out of town! There is no argument to be had here, they are allowed these big squads by the league and can pick whatever side they like.

What about the incorrect decisions that went against us? The Gerrard penalty at home? The Kozluk goal at West Ham? The penalty Shelton should have had at Old Trafford? etc. You could go on all night. All these things could have altered the script but how many things do you want changing to re-write history? If we were a good side, one truly good enough to stay up convincingly - we wouldn't have had to rely on the honesty of cheats and the PL.
 

So are we to say that reserve team players and non-regulars should never play a PL game because it might affect someone else? Get out of town! There is no argument to be had here, they are allowed these big squads by the league and can pick whatever side they like..

The Premier League disagrees with you. You can't pick whatever side you like. It's against their rules. That's why they've punished Wolves!

If a struggling marathon runner took a taxi to the Olympic Stadium and then sprinted past his rivals to the finishing line. Would you say to the runners who competed fairly, "tough shit, you were in the lead, victory was in your hands and you threw it away. Stop bleating!".
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom