midds

More like shit or shittest, I'd laugh my fucking ass off if Aberdeen ended up winning it. Never happen. Either Celtic or Rangers get the chance to get some money in the bank. What price a war of attrition to decide who pays thir bills?

Just cranks up the pressure in Glasgow. Shit or bust from now on in.

In the same way Thomson House have changed their tune since the Sunday Sun was banned from SJP? Is that ban still in place? They'll continue to make it up as they go along, same as they always have. Access or not, they'll print shite.

Are Plymouth playing in an orchard or something?

Their luck's going to run out soon enough.

Just shut up pet.

Williamson reminds me of a tall Andy O'Brien. Nothing spectacular but steady and solid enough (at this level). Colo and him seem decent enough with Taylor at RB.

They barely had a chance all game. They were outplayed in every department of the game and can count themselves lucky it wasn't more. They're dreadful.

And who cold blame him tbh? Certainly not me. It's like with Fabregas, they're both very unfortunate that their national team has better players in their position, otherwise they would be shining on that stage. Still can't get my head around the fact Fabregas isn't good enough to play regularly for his country. He's top notch but unfortunately for him he has Xavi and Iniesta in the way. Him and Arteta would walk into most other midfields in Europe.

And who cold blame him tbh?

I'd build the England team around Arteta tbh. He's fucking magic.

Might be too late by then. I'd prefer June tbh.

Ashley young should start. Downing in the squad as cover. N'Zogbia can suck eggs.

No shit.

Looks poor from what I've seen of him. Nothing about his game looks Premier League. Or Championship for that matter...

The results have been far better than the performances this season. We've won loads of games by simply being less shit than the opposition. If Ashley and Llambias don't realise that a complete revamp of the squad is needed and try to do it on the cheap then we'll get tanked every week and come straight back down. Rinse and repeat....

thats bollox mate there skint aswell that wont happen Gold was directly quoted saying exactly that tbh. It wouldn't be West Ham as such, it would have been Gold personally lending them £10m. You're right though, it won't happen.

Wow.

If they are allowed to sell players outside of the window (which I've got my doubts about letting them do it) surely the players they do sell won't be eligible to play for their new team this season?

They're basically relying on the goodwill of the rest of the PL and the FA just to complete this season. I still think they'll survive the season somehow but they'll go under once they go down. The only way they'll start next season is if they sell all of their players, reduce the wage bill by something stupid like 90% and play kids for the foreseeable.

I imagine a mixture of common sense and looking at the team they regularly play in most games. If they consistantly favor a certain set of players over others & then drop a lot of them for one specific game then its clearly dodgy. No one saying anything about a side dropping one player are they. Surely McCarthy's common sense told him to rest them from a game they'd probably have lost anyway and save them for the 6 pointer a few days later? My problem with this whole shebang is, in my opinion, every manager should be allowed to play who he wants. The authorities shouldn't have the power to force managers to play players who he wants to rest. Also, the inconsistency in applying this fucked-up rule needs sorting. Very selective to pick on Wolves but let other clubs do it on a regular basis. If you think they should be forced by the PL or FA to play their strongest teams in every game then that's fair enough. If they're going to do that then it should apply to all teams in all domestic competitions. No exceptions.

Exactly. The point of the league is determine who's the best and who's the worst. If managers weaken their teams too often, chances are they'll finish lower. It's their choice to take the risk or not. Its very unlikely teams in the bottom half will beat sides in the top 4. It is quite likely that theyll do better in the following game if they rest their better players for those games. Its not really down to managerial ability, theyd be stupid not to. If one starts and gains an advantage from it, they all start. Shouldnt be allowed to happen. Just out of interest, Who actually decides which combination of players make the strongest team? The PL? The FA? Who? The manager? The fans? The bookies? How do they come to the decision? If they can't decide/agree on who those players are then how can they ascertain if the strongest team possible has been named? What happens if a manager wants to change the system and has to drop one of his better strikers to play an 'inferior' player to beef up the midfield? Is that allowed? There's no debate that the current "rule" is too vague to be properly followed. But it's still obvious that Wolves blatantly decided not to "show up" at one of the 38 league matches as they accepted defeat before the match was even played, and there should be implemented a rule that's not as vague as the current against doing something like that. If the rule is vague, that's not McCarthy's fault. He picked his team and they lost. End of story. Shouldn't have been charged in the first place.

Exactly. The point of the league is determine who's the best and who's the worst. If managers weaken their teams too often, chances are they'll finish lower. It's their choice to take the risk or not. Its very unlikely teams in the bottom half will beat sides in the top 4. It is quite likely that theyll do better in the following game if they rest their better players for those games. Its not really down to managerial ability, theyd be stupid not to. If one starts and gains an advantage from it, they all start. Shouldnt be allowed to happen. Just out of interest, Who actually decides which combination of players make the strongest team? The PL? The FA? Who? The manager? The fans? The bookies? How do they come to the decision? If they can't decide/agree on who those players are then how can they ascertain if the strongest team possible has been named? What happens if a manager wants to change the system and has to drop one of his better strikers to play an 'inferior' player to beef up the midfield? Is that allowed?

Exactly. The point of the league is determine who's the best and who's the worst. If managers weaken their teams too often, chances are they'll finish lower. It's their choice to take the risk or not.

In my honest opinion I think there should be a limit of how many changes you should be able to do between two matches (not counting injures/suspensions). 10 changes is just silly, whoever does it and for whatever reason they do it when none from the last match were injured or suspended. Would be a much more definite rule than "you should field your strongest team". How many is acceptable in your opinion then? Just out of interest. For the record, I do think McCarthy took the piss by resting 10 but I'd defend his right to name whatever team he likes for any individual game. And that's my point. It's up to the manager, NOT the FA of PL, to decide who plays.