Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
dandannieldanok

Sheffield Wednesday

By dandannieldanok, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Mort

Mort

Posted
Posted

Didnt Leeds face a penalty last season as a result of putting out a squad made up of too many loanees? Or was that passed over because of the point deduction for going into admin? :dunno:

sdb

sdb

Posted
Posted
All these clubs building their sides on loan players - fook off you short-termist fookers. Die a slow painful death.

That means you, Tony Pulis, you C U N T.

bit harsh no??!

seems to be working ok for him, and it's not like we haven't loaned loads of players over the last few years

Jimmy

Jimmy

Posted
Posted
Didnt Leeds face a penalty last season as a result of putting out a squad made up of too many loanees? Or was that passed over because of the point deduction for going into admin? :dunno:

they got a small fine because they lost the game anyway

DB11

DB11

Posted
Posted
I feel sorry for Stoke on this one to be honest. They've obviously followed the rules on all their loan signings and would have played more at many points both this season and last if they'd been allowed to. That game should be awarded to Stoke.

You'd think that even if Stoke were just below us and Sheffield Wednesday near the top of the league??? I think not :) :)

Fez of Mahrez

Fez of Mahrez

Posted
Posted
You'd think that even if Stoke were just below us and Sheffield Wednesday near the top of the league??? I think not :) :)

No, probably not. I'd be saying the sixth player didn't even play and that it shouldn't affect us when the result has already been decided.

Such is the bias and desperation of the fan of a relegation-threatened team.

DB11

DB11

Posted
Posted
No, probably not. I'd be saying the sixth player didn't even play and that it shouldn't affect us when the result has already been decided.

Such is the bias and desperation of the fan of a relegation-threatened team.

True. I agree with you though. Wednesday to lose points!! :angry:

Ultra

Ultra

Posted
Posted

If the league is to keep what remains of its integrity, it MUST impose a points deduction on the owls.

The ironically-named Brian Laws has broken the rules and gained a clear advantage in doing so.

A fine in this case would be inadequate.

Thank God it wasn't us who made this type of fcuk-up!

davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

It shows how the loan system has gone to far accord to that report 11 loan players in the 2 squads and Stoke still had to more they would have used if they could.

We're no better with 7 loanees, the only difference with us is the majority are not deemed good enough to play for a rlegation threatened team.

I think it's become a big cop out for managers and clubs relying on loanees instead of getting a decent squad together in the first place.

dandannieldanok

dandannieldanok

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think it's become a big cop out for managers and clubs relying on loanees instead of getting a decent squad together in the first place.

I totally agree but it's a bit of a vicious circle in the sense that everyone will start moaning if youngsters aren't given the chance to go out on loan from their parent club where they won't get a chance (if you get what I mean :whistle: ).

The Football League/FA/Premier League or whoever makes the decisions should impose a maximum of 3/4 loans for every squad, not just on matchdays.

tartanowl

tartanowl

Posted
Posted

It is a monumental ****up by Brian Laws, but to be fair only 4 of the loan players played a part in the fixture. Kavanagh, Songo'o, and Sahar started, Showumni came off the bench. Slusarski and Bolder were unused subs. Also as far as I'm aware we have not been in this position before.

If anyone has something to complain about the match yesterday it is us. Ameobi got booked early on and could and should have been sent off in the first half. He got away with several fouls after his initial booking. One of our players was elbowed in the box (not sure who and I haven't seen the replay) but we got NO penalty and there was no card shown. Sean McAllister got assaulted by their left back. A disgraceful tackle that could have broken his leg and again the referee bottled sending him off.

:crylaugh: And Brian Laws brought on Enoch Showumni for the last 15 minutes which is as good as us having 10 players on the pitch.

It was one of those games where everything seemed to go against us yet we got a result and could easily have won it in the end. Stoke will be awful in the Premiership if they go up. They were lucky to get a point.

Kilworthfox

Kilworthfox

Posted
Posted
It is a monumental ****up by Brian Laws, but to be fair only 4 of the loan players played a part in the fixture. Kavanagh, Songo'o, and Sahar started, Showumni came off the bench. Slusarski and Bolder were unused subs. Also as far as I'm aware we have not been in this position before.

If anyone has something to complain about the match yesterday it is us. Ameobi got booked early on and could and should have been sent off in the first half. He got away with several fouls after his initial booking. One of our players was elbowed in the box (not sure who and I haven't seen the replay) but we got NO penalty and there was no card shown. Sean McAllister got assaulted by their left back. A disgraceful tackle that could have broken his leg and again the referee bottled sending him off.

:crylaugh: And Brian Laws brought on Enoch Showumni for the last 15 minutes which is as good as us having 10 players on the pitch.

It was one of those games where everything seemed to go against us yet we got a result and could easily have won it in the end. Stoke will be awful in the Premiership if they go up. They were lucky to get a point.

I saw the tackle it was a disgrace! Red card def! the ref bottled it big time.

Bert

Bert

Posted
Posted
It is a monumental ****up by Brian Laws, but to be fair only 4 of the loan players played a part in the fixture. Kavanagh, Songo'o, and Sahar started, Showumni came off the bench. Slusarski and Bolder were unused subs. Also as far as I'm aware we have not been in this position before.

If anyone has something to complain about the match yesterday it is us. Ameobi got booked early on and could and should have been sent off in the first half. He got away with several fouls after his initial booking. One of our players was elbowed in the box (not sure who and I haven't seen the replay) but we got NO penalty and there was no card shown. Sean McAllister got assaulted by their left back. A disgraceful tackle that could have broken his leg and again the referee bottled sending him off.

:crylaugh: And Brian Laws brought on Enoch Showumni for the last 15 minutes which is as good as us having 10 players on the pitch.

It was one of those games where everything seemed to go against us yet we got a result and could easily have won it in the end. Stoke will be awful in the Premiership if they go up. They were lucky to get a point.

Thing is mate, the rules have been broken! What's the point of having rules, if they're going to get broke and not go properly punished?

I think you'll get a fine personally.

tartanowl

tartanowl

Posted
Posted
Thing is mate, the rules have been broken! What's the point of having rules, if they're going to get broke and not go properly punished?

I think you'll get a fine personally.

I suppose if the rules have been broken we do deserve a punishment. A points deduction would be very harsh though considering only 4 of the players were playing. Stoke definitely shouldn't get anything extra out of the game IMO.

Bert

Bert

Posted
Posted
I suppose if the rules have been broken we do deserve a punishment. A points deduction would be very harsh though considering only 4 of the players were playing. Stoke definitely shouldn't get anything extra out of the game IMO.

The rule is that you're only allowed 5 loan players in your matchday squad, regardless of how many you play.

I'm sure your defence will be that you only used 4 players though.

If i'm being honest, i wouldn't be too upset if you got a points deduction, but i can only see you getting a fine.

Uncle Albert

Uncle Albert

Posted
Posted
The rule is that you're only allowed 5 loan players in your matchday squad, regardless of how many you play.

I'm sure your defence will be that you only used 4 players though.

If i'm being honest, i wouldn't be too upset if you got a points deduction, but i can only see you getting a fine.

You wouldnt be the only one.

Kilworthfox

Kilworthfox

Posted
Posted
The rule is that you're only allowed 5 loan players in your matchday squad, regardless of how many you play.

I'm sure your defence will be that you only used 4 players though.

If i'm being honest, i wouldn't be too upset if you got a points deduction, but i can only see you getting a fine.

Is it a rule that you have to field 5 subs? I don't think it is! You required to field 8 players as far as i know, so a rule has been broken although technically it did not effect the end result.

Fine would be the appropriate decision however this F.A?

Bert

Bert

Posted
Posted
Is it a rule that you have to field 5 subs? I don't think it is! You required to field 8 players as far as i know, so a rule has been broken although technically it did not effect the end result.

Fine would be the appropriate decision however this F.A?

What are you on about? That post just not make any sense whatsoever.

I never said you have to field five subs. Div.

Kilworthfox

Kilworthfox

Posted
Posted
What are you on about? That post just not make any sense whatsoever.

I never said you have to field five subs. Div.

:clap:

The story is that they did not field 6 loanes but named them in the 16.

There fore the rule that is in question is not if they played but, have they broken a rule by just naming them and possibly playing in the match.

I said that they did not have to name the 1 extra loaned player in the subs they could have named 4 rather than 5 and not broke a rule.

This however was a mistake not where they were in a position to only name a loaned player as a sub.

Bert

Bert

Posted
Posted
:clap:

The story is that they did not field 6 loanes but named them in the 16.

There fore the rule that is in question is not if they played but, have they broken a rule by just naming them and possibly playing in the match.

I said that they did not have to name the 1 extra loaned player in the subs they could have named 4 rather than 5 and not broke a rule.

This however was a mistake not where they were in a position to only name a loaned player as a sub.

But they're only allowed to name 5 in the matchday 16. That's the rule and they've broken it.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...