Wolves handed suspended £25000 fine...

[Doctor Zaius]

f***ing ridiculous. What an absolute disgrace.

 

The top 4 do it allll the time for crying out loud. How many times have we seen the team thats already won the title play out a weakened side? Man utd did it against Hull, they played a load of kids in a game that was alot more important, IF Hull had won would there have been any sort of punishment for Man utd? I think not. I can remember Arsenal and Chelsea doing it in the past too. iirc Liverpool did it against Fulham a few year back, Fulham won that game and the teams down there (might have been Warnock in particular) were playing holy hell yet nothing came of it. 

 

It's the managers choice to put out whatever team he wants, regardless of the fans it's the managers choice and the PL or whatever band of fuckwits dealt out this fine have nothing to do with what side Wolves put out.

[JH]

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.

 

The rule says nothing about expecting to win though, the rule is about playing your strongest 11. Whether it's a Wolves reserve or a Man U wonderkid, it's still not their strongest 11.

[midds]

Said at the time McCarthy had the right to pick whoever he wants for each and every game. If it goes wrong and he upsets people it's down to him and it's his responsibilty. That's the chance he took and it's ridiculous that they've been singled out for resting a few when it happens all the time, particularly towards the end of the season.

 

Let's see how much Man U or Chelsea are fined when they do it.

[Village Idiot]

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.

exactly.

 

So, since the Top 4 can afford big strong squads they are allowed to rest players and other teams have always to field their first XI? Not a good logic.

 

This decision opens a can of worms really, who says what a "full strength team" is? What about the cups?

 

[Pilko]

May I ask why Manchester United weren't given a fine when they played their reserves at Hull last season? Not that I'm complaining obviously, but it's exactly the same thing.

[David28]

What a shit decision. ManUtd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool all field poor sides when the season is "over" for them... Man City under Sven fielded poor sides because they got to Europe via the fair-play. Spurs fielded a poor side a few weeks back because of the FA Cup.

 

Just because this is Wolves (not that I like them or anything) but that is really unfair.

[The Prophet]

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.

 

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?

[gazza ladra]

Poor decision. Manager needs the flexibility to pick the best side for the club's overall campaign. They will pick need to pick weakened sides from time to time because of the number of fixtures clubs are playing. Clubs do it all the time in the league and FA cups.

[Jayson]

The idea of managers surrendering games against sides in the top 4 makes them being in the same league absolutely worthless.

 

As said, the bigger teams can play weaker sides and can still compete for points. Whether thats fair is completely irrelevant. A team like Wolves playing reserves and kids against Manchester United is a difference scenario and basically represents a manager making absolutely no attempt whatsoever to compete for points, which is the entire point of the table system.

[midds]

So this means every manager from every team HAS to play his strongest XI in EVERY game. By resting a player he would, theoretically, be weakening his team and would be fined for doing so. Or is there a lmit as to how many changes he can make? Is 1 ok? What about 2? Would 3 get a fine? What about 7?

 

It's bollocks. The FA need to stop interfering so much. Let the managers manage as they see fit.

 

It has to be up to the individual manager to pick the team and he should stand or fall by his decisions. If Wolves go down by a point, it'll be on McCarthy. If they stay up by a point then he'll look back on the Burnley result and think he was justified. 

[bovineblue]

The idea of managers surrendering games against sides in the top 4 makes them being in the same league absolutely worthless.

 

As said, the bigger teams can play weaker sides and can still compete for points. Whether thats fair is completely irrelevant. A team like Wolves playing reserves and kids against Manchester United is a difference scenario and basically represents a manager making absolutely no attempt whatsoever to compete for points, which is the entire point of the table system.

 

So bigger teams shouldn't have to follow the rules because they can afford better players?

[Kaizero]

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.

 

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.

[Kaizero]

So this means every manager from every team HAS to play his strongest XI in EVERY game. By resting a player he would, theoretically, be weakening his team and would be fined for doing so. Or is there a lmit as to how many changes he can make? Is 1 ok? What about 2? Would 3 get a fine? What about 7?

 

It's bollocks. The FA need to stop interfering so much. Let the managers manage as they see fit.

 

It has to be up to the individual manager to pick the team and he should stand or fall by his decisions. If Wolves go down by a point, it'll be on McCarthy. If they stay up by a point then he'll look back on the Burnley result and think he was justified. 

 

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".

[midds]

So this means every manager from every team HAS to play his strongest XI in EVERY game. By resting a player he would, theoretically, be weakening his team and would be fined for doing so. Or is there a lmit as to how many changes he can make? Is 1 ok? What about 2? Would 3 get a fine? What about 7?

 

It's bollocks. The FA need to stop interfering so much. Let the managers manage as they see fit.

 

It has to be up to the individual manager to pick the team and he should stand or fall by his decisions. If Wolves go down by a point, it'll be on McCarthy. If they stay up by a point then he'll look back on the Burnley result and think he was justified. 

 

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.

[Jayson]

So it'll be fine if all the managers of sides in the bottom half rested their entire side when playing the top 4, aslong as they get to choose we'll ignore whether the point of the league actually holds any value.

[Exiled in Texas]

I agree in principle with this, but can't think how it can be defined so it can be legislated.

 

It also borders on match fixing if a team doesn't even try to win a game (yes, I know that's hard to define too).

[Neil]

Agree with the fact that resting the entire team virtually did come across as taking the piss but ultimately it's his job to keep them up over 38 games, and he saw it as the best thing to do in the long term. There is now a ridiculously dangerous precedent emerging here. What a shambles.

 

Let the manager do what he wants. The quality of the team has nothing to do with it. Either way, what fucking right do the FA have of determining what is and what isn't a strong team? This truly is a ridiculous precedent. Not that they'll stick to it.

[Kaizero]

So this means every manager from every team HAS to play his strongest XI in EVERY game. By resting a player he would, theoretically, be weakening his team and would be fined for doing so. Or is there a lmit as to how many changes he can make? Is 1 ok? What about 2? Would 3 get a fine? What about 7?

 

It's bollocks. The FA need to stop interfering so much. Let the managers manage as they see fit.

 

It has to be up to the individual manager to pick the team and he should stand or fall by his decisions. If Wolves go down by a point, it'll be on McCarthy. If they stay up by a point then he'll look back on the Burnley result and think he was justified. 

 

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.

[Kaizero]

Agree with the fact that resting the entire team virtually did come across as taking the piss but ultimately it's his job to keep them up over 38 games, and he saw it as the best thing to do in the long term. There is now a ridiculously dangerous precedent emerging here. What a shambles.

 

Let the manager do what he wants. The quality of the team has nothing to do with it. Either way, what fucking right do the FA have of determining what is and what isn't a strong team? This truly is a ridiculous precedent. Not that they'll stick to it.

 

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.

[Neil]

So this means every manager from every team HAS to play his strongest XI in EVERY game. By resting a player he would, theoretically, be weakening his team and would be fined for doing so. Or is there a lmit as to how many changes he can make? Is 1 ok? What about 2? Would 3 get a fine? What about 7?

 

It's bollocks. The FA need to stop interfering so much. Let the managers manage as they see fit.

 

It has to be up to the individual manager to pick the team and he should stand or fall by his decisions. If Wolves go down by a point, it'll be on McCarthy. If they stay up by a point then he'll look back on the Burnley result and think he was justified. 

 

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? 

[Neil]

Agree with the fact that resting the entire team virtually did come across as taking the piss but ultimately it's his job to keep them up over 38 games, and he saw it as the best thing to do in the long term. There is now a ridiculously dangerous precedent emerging here. What a shambles.

 

Let the manager do what he wants. The quality of the team has nothing to do with it. Either way, what fucking right do the FA have of determining what is and what isn't a strong team? This truly is a ridiculous precedent. Not that they'll stick to it.

 

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.

 

It's the principle and moreover the politics of the FA butting in where they don't belong.

 

That said, isn't there a rule stating a strong team must be played in each game? If that rule was actually implemented, why aren't teams being fined/punished in some other way every single week?

[midds]

So it'll be fine if all the managers of sides in the bottom half rested their entire side when playing the top 4, aslong as they get to choose we'll ignore whether the point of the league actually holds any value.

 

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.

[Jayson]

The idea of managers surrendering games against sides in the top 4 makes them being in the same league absolutely worthless.

 

As said, the bigger teams can play weaker sides and can still compete for points. Whether thats fair is completely irrelevant. A team like Wolves playing reserves and kids against Manchester United is a difference scenario and basically represents a manager making absolutely no attempt whatsoever to compete for points, which is the entire point of the table system.

 

So bigger teams shouldn't have to follow the rules because they can afford better players?

 

I think the entire point the rule would have been put into place is to keep the league competitive so sides cannot throw matches, more so than wanting the best teams to be as brilliant as they can possible be. The better teams can afford to drop players and keep the league competitive, worse sides cant.

[gekkotime]

I've never really understood how the hell are they calculating these fines, but I find it ridiculous that football governing bodies are fining people and teams for a couple of quids given the amount of money in football. Either fine them properly, or just admit that the rules are unclear and they don't give a crap.

[Kaizero]

So this means every manager from every team HAS to play his strongest XI in EVERY game. By resting a player he would, theoretically, be weakening his team and would be fined for doing so. Or is there a lmit as to how many changes he can make? Is 1 ok? What about 2? Would 3 get a fine? What about 7?

 

It's bollocks. The FA need to stop interfering so much. Let the managers manage as they see fit.

 

It has to be up to the individual manager to pick the team and he should stand or fall by his decisions. If Wolves go down by a point, it'll be on McCarthy. If they stay up by a point then he'll look back on the Burnley result and think he was justified. 

 

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.

 

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".