Premier League double standards

[LouTheBlade]

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!

I know the PL disagree with that view, that's what this debate is all about! However, this clearly wasn't against their rules when the top 4 were doing it at regular intervals. They've punished Wolves because their "cash-cow" clubs as we say have complained about it. We have to ask ourselves why it is a suspended fine - most probably because there are legal implications for enforcing it. Theyre effectively telling Wolves that their employess can't go out and do their jobs because it's not fair on other clubs. Its pathetic.

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!".

I don't see how this scenario draws any comparison to football or this situation

We clearly wont agree on this Sothall so I will accept and respect your opinion and call it a day.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

The PL have always had rules that prevents all those who compete in the league from fielding a deliberately weakened side. Most would do this (like Wolves ) to rest players for games they think they can't win for games they think they can win. The more sinister side of this is to throw games for benefit of some kind.

Up to now, the PL have never really enforced this rule, even though plenty of clubs have done it.

This time one of the big boys feel deeply affected by it, made a big issue of it to the point where the PL have now enforced a rule.

It's nothing new and the same mentality will allow Portsmouth to sell players or get next seasons money now!

 

[Darren]

The PL have always had rules that prevents all those who compete in the league from fielding a deliberately weakened side. Most would do this (like Wolves ) to rest players for games they think they can't win for games they think they can win. The more sinister side of this is to throw games for benefit of some kind.

Up to now, the PL have never really enforced this rule, even though plenty of clubs have done it.

This time one of the big boys feel deeply affected by it, made a big issue of it to the point where the PL have now enforced a rule.

It's nothing new and the same mentality will allow Portsmouth to sell players or get next seasons money now!

When Leeds feeled a weakened team in league games in the early 70's (because they had important European and FA Cup games coming up), at at the time when they were equivalent to Man Utd today, the league did, indeed, fine them.

How things change...

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

When Leeds feeled a weakened team in league games in the early 70's (because they had important European and FA Cup games coming up), at at the time when they were equivalent to Man Utd today, the league did, indeed, fine them.

How things change...

Indeed, Alan Hardaker will be turning in his grave. Hardly a bastion of virtue but the way the FL was run back then does highlight what a cesspool of sleaze, corruption and greed the PL truly is.

 

[LouTheBlade]

The PL have always had rules that prevents all those who compete in the league from fielding a deliberately weakened side. Most would do this (like Wolves ) to rest players for games they think they can't win for games they think they can win. The more sinister side of this is to throw games for benefit of some kind.

Up to now, the PL have never really enforced this rule, even though plenty of clubs have done it.

This time one of the big boys feel deeply affected by it, made a big issue of it to the point where the PL have now enforced a rule.

It's nothing new and the same mentality will allow Portsmouth to sell players or get next seasons money now!

If this is the case the rules are the rules - However, by my definition;

A rule is only a rule if it is consistently enforced. If it is not, then the punishment is merely a preference.

Wow, I should write books

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

If this is the case the rules are the rules - However, by my definition;

A rule is only a rule if it is consistently enforced. If it is not, then the punishment is merely a preference.

Wow, I should write books

The issue Lou, is not the rule but what constitutes a breaking of the rule.

 

[LouTheBlade]

The issue Lou, is not the rule but what constitutes a breaking of the rule.

I know SE Blade, i'm following you on that. Im simply referring to the point you made in a previous post about this being a pre-existing rule that wasnt enforced by the PL.......

What i'm essentially saying is that rules are non-existent if they are not enforced. Having them written down on an official document doesn't make them a "rule." What makes it a rule is if it is enforced to the letter and carried out.

Essentially the point I am trying to get at (in a round-about way) is that if you want to define what constitutes the breaking of a rule, then the rule must exist from day one and be enforced upon everyone that breaks it. The fact is it never was, so the rule essentially never existed until now.

Moving the goal posts 17 years or so down the line, for the benefit of the 'clique' does not make this a viable ruling IMO.

 

[Nick Jansky]

This is a real worry. What if this rule applies in the CCC? We field a weakened team every week. We'll be finished.