Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SimonM Wrote:


> Understandable at the time. Benitez had just

> fielded a second XI away to Fulham, who duly won

> 1-0 - a result that saved them from relegation. It

> also exlains why, when asked whom he thought woudl

> succeed as manage at United, he answered deadpan

> "Rafael Benitez" >:D me that Liverpool, having disrespected the Premier

> league, should fail to win the Champions League.


Sorry, but I think that's total bo!!ocks! A manager of a team can field whoever they bloody want, and they will put their team first. Had Liverpool been playing the blades indtead of Fulham, he would have fielded the same team, and Warnock would have been happy about it!


If (and this is unlikely) a Warnock team ever get to a cup final, you can bet your bottom dollar he will have that game in mind when selecting his team for the last couple of league games... Assuming of course that those games are not important to his team, which is also unlikely, as his team will probably be in a relegation scrap! >:D<

Well said that man.

It all boils down to sour prescient grapes at the end of the next day.


If the Blades bid is successful I shall be a whiny little turd forever more, complaining about what a bunch of whiny little turds Sheffield Utd / Charlton / Wigan / Fulham were.


* points taken SimonM, edited accordingly*

Sheffield United, Charlton, Wigan & Fulham all made it clear from the start they would not let this matter rest - long before any of them were confirmed as relegated/not relegated. So it can hardly be classed as "sour grapes". I have yet to see any premier league club come out in vocal support for the scandalously lenient "punishment" the so-called "independent commission" handed out to West Ham.


And yes, of course a manager can put out any side he wants, and any other manager whose team is adversely affected by (real or imagined) sharp practice is free to comment on it.

Free to comment yes. I in turn am free to think it was a nasty bitter comment, and hold it against him.


As for the whole situation with West Ham, you are right, it's not only Shef U who have complained about it. What I want to know is exactly what the rules say about punishments for this sort of thing... If they state that this breach of the rules is punishable by a 3 point deduction, then it's black and white, and West Ham should be docked the 3 points... Basically, the real issue here is that the league need to make their rules very clear, and those rules need to be punished in a uniform manner. At least then no one is left in any doubt.

Everyone expected a points deduction (including West Ham): precedent strongly indicated a points deduction would be imposed (see Middlesbrough a few years back). The fact that a points deduction was the normal sanction was emphasised inadvertently by the Commission itself when it saw fit to add an excruciatingly long and unconvincing list of reasons to its "judgement" as ro why a points deduction had not been imposed. I think really the rules and regulations were quite clear until the Commission totally bollixed things up
It's a very fair point regarding consistency and Boro. However, there is still no guideline regarding punishments... In a court of law, a particular crime will carry a minimum and maximum punishment. The Judge then decides what s/he feels is appropriate in that case. The lack of these guidelines effectively means that the league can do what they want, and however unfair it may be, no one can really argue against them, because they can just say so what.

ha ha ha ha

"Against this backdrop, the Premier League confirmed yesterday that it is now looking at whether [sheffield] United themselves transgressed the U18 rule - a regulation that covers a broad range of offences, and which West Ham broke over Tevez - over the sale of the striker Steve Kabba to Watford in January this year.


United insisted that Watford, who paid ?500,000 for the player, could not field him against them at Bramall Lane in April, in a match that Watford subsequently lost.


Such clauses are not permitted in transfers between Premier League clubs, and while a similar situation occurred with Everton's goalkeeper Tim Howard against his old club Manchester United, those clubs escaped disciplinary action as there was no formal agreement between them.


If the League finds evidence of a rule breach in the Kabba case, theoretical punishments include fines or a points deduction. The precedent of the West Ham case could be used, another irony as United are calling for a points penalty."

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...