Kaizero

Put £25 on US to win the WC at 75.0 in odds, returning £1875 should it go in, which it won't.

If you're drunk enough to not even attempt to spell properly, you're not on the computer.

Forest, Arsenal and Barcelona. Cheers returns £132 with Unibet, not bad.

I want to put £50 on something. Anyone nice enough to give me a decent suggestion so I can blame them when it blows up in my face and I'm £50 down?

The "25 max number of players in the first team squad" thing can't come quick enough tbh.

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. I agree the players shouldn't have beem tired but that's the decision he made. I think it would be a total disaster if managers' hands were tied regarding who they could and couldn't pick - injuries and suspensions usually limit them enough. Fair enough my "rule" suggestion might be shit But there should still be some sort of proper rule preventing a team from throwing matches, which is blatantly what Wolves did. That said, I'd be less bothered about it had the players fielded at least tried to do something to win, but they didn't. And it was so obvious they went out there just waiting for the 90 mins to be over.

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.

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