Kaizero

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. More than 7 is taking the piss. Think the limit should be 6 changes. I don't follow. What if there are injuries/suspensions? So if there are 6 injuries/suspensions that require a change of player, the manager is unable to change anyone else? I said discounting injuries/suspensions earlier in that discussion, you don't follow. It'd be a ridiculous rule though. Managers can do what they like with team selections ultimately, why on earth should they have restrictions? Losing the game was punishment enough and he would have had egg on his face if they'd lost their next game but as it was, he'll see it as a justified decision. Good on him if it keeps them up. I would like few things more than see Wolves go down and never come back up. If it was up to me McCarthy should've been sacked for blatantly throwing a game, just unprofessional and detrimental to the game, even if their three points at Burnley keep them up. Their best players should be able to manage 38 matches, they did 46 in the Championship ffs, resting them is no excuse and the players should've been more than pumped up for testing themselves against one of the best teams in the league.

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. I'm in agreement there, it would ruin the league as you don't need to watch those games anymore. As whilst now one team is major favourites, you never know what might happen if the opposition has a good day and so on. You would know who'd win before the match started if teams start doing like Wolves, their fans wouldn't need to turn up to cheer on their club.

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. More than 7 is taking the piss. Think the limit should be 6 changes. I don't follow. What if there are injuries/suspensions? So if there are 6 injuries/suspensions that require a change of player, the manager is unable to change anyone else? I said discounting injuries/suspensions earlier in that discussion, you don't follow.

Not really a big precedent as £25k isn't that big a punishment either way, clubs would just think "we can afford that fine." and do it anyways. Unless they're Pompey.

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. More than 7 is taking the piss. Think the limit should be 6 changes.

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".

What an absolute crock of shite. It's the manager's job to pick the team, if he choose to pick rotate his squad, no matter who your in charge of you should be entitled to do so without scruntiny. The think is his decision was justified as they enjoyed a comfortable win over Burnely the following weekend. So what are you proposing? We bring a rule in saying, oh the top teams can rotate their squads but smaller teams are totally unentitled to so? It's not squad rotation when it's changing your entire staring eleven (bar keeper) when up against the (potentially) best team in the league, it's down right match fixing as they had no intention of trying to get any points at all. Top four teams rarely change ALL of their squad from one match to another, and they still are more than competitive and most often win. They can do this because they don't surrender their games even with a few lesser known names in the team. I fail to see how people can't see the difference in out-right throwing a match before it's started compared to fielding some reserves to spare a few of the regulars, but still going for a win. Wolves didn't even try.

Some Norwegians are close to buying the club as well apparently.

Too small a punishment. Way too small. Difference between the top teams and the likes of Wolves is that Man Utd and Rsenal's reserves can beat most PL teams, Wolves' reserves cannot. They blatantly threw the game, weakened top "four" teams still expect to win, and do just that.

It looks likely. Just checked that our game that day will be on TV. Don't know which one to watch, Jonas beating Germany or us beating Bristol... Seriously, we shouldn't let Jonas go for a unimportant friendly game as he's our only decent left winger. I'm not prepared to see Guthrie there again. Chances are he'll be desperate to play in that though. I know Maradona has guarenteed him a place pretty much, he'll probably want to make sure he plays in all the friendlies to confirm his place. Aye, would potentially be killing off all his morale asking him not to play for his country this close to a WC.

7pm kick off mate. .com are wrong. Phew, that'll save some frantic strange shuffle jogging through town to get to the match on time. Been nearly three months since the last youth game And you call yourself our FM scout?!

Yep. 4-1 FA Cup I think... Look up.

lol @ Man City

Decided to put £5 on Norway beating Canada in the Olympics at 42.0 in odds since I felt like throwing away a fiver at the potential, and so so so unrealistic, £210 return.

Not the real Richardson tbf. Bah. He was friends with one of our reserve players (cant remember who) so thats a bit shit. Friends with fake Danny Simpson as well, which wouldn't make sense since they'd know eachother from Man Utd. And that's just one of the things counting against him being real.

Not the real Richardson tbf.

Noooo http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=237749045778&ref=nf

Well played. Classic feeling of "f***, knew I should have put more on" I've gone £15 on Northug winning the 15km at 4.25, hope I'll feel the same after He's a fucking cunt tbh, can't do shit by himself.

Unibet https://no.unibet.com/betting/grid/vinter-ol/1000093180.odds

Well played. Classic feeling of "fuck, knew I should have put more on" I've gone £15 on Northug winning the 15km at 4.25, hope I'll feel the same after

Well played.

This. Not a chance of it happening this season so I don't see how this can be the case. This season shows the "big four" might be falling out of the CL spots, which would be a big issue for the money makers, hence the idea of giving whichever drops out of the four top spots in the future yet another chance so money won't be lost. It won't apply this season, but I'd bet they're regretting not coming up with this before. You think the Premier League want it to be the same top 4 every year? They want to mix it up a bit and make the league more entertaining, it's no surprise Liverpool and the other so called big 4 are the only teams against it. tbh I think the world is cynical enough for that, including the Premier League, the "top four" are the main pull outside of England and if one or two of them started to trail it would make the gloryhunters jump ship and perhaps focus on other league, or not follow football at all, meaning a lot of money would be lost selling television rights to other countries and so on and so on.

I agree with that, would make the cups potentially interesting again.

I see it the other way around, the gap between the "top four" and the ones close to them are becoming much less apparent, and this would give the "top four" a chance at remaining the "top four" even if not finishing in it.

This. Not a chance of it happening this season so I don't see how this can be the case. This season shows the "big four" might be falling out of the CL spots, which would be a big issue for the money makers, hence the idea of giving whichever drops out of the four top spots in the future yet another chance so money won't be lost. It won't apply this season, but I'd bet they're regretting not coming up with this before.