Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

Wolves have been handed a £25,000 suspended fine for fielding a weakened team against Man U ealier this season. The BBC News story is here. Am I alone in thinking that this raises many serious questions. Ok, it looks like Wolves broke some rules, but why hadn't we heard of them before? Wolves are not the first to rest players for a league game. Secondly, where do you draw the line between what's squad rotation and what's a weakened team? It's almost like Wolves have been punished for having crap squad players. The rule seems to activly favour rich teams able to buld a strong side. Are changes to the rules needed?

I await Arsenals fine for the Cups.

Edit: Also, what the feck is going on when you're paying players thoudands a week, but you can't use them

Disgraceful

Why haven't they been deducted points?

Old Gold Bastards.

Puskas wrote:Why haven't they been deducted points?

Old Gold Bastards.

If the powers that be had got their Premier League Wanderers mixed up, there would have been a points deduction!

the old one rule for them and another for us is the only rule the pemier league understands they cant go changing it it might harm there biggest money spinners and we cant have that now can we

bwfc1979 wrote:the old one rule for them and another for us is the only rule the pemier league understands they cant go changing it it might harm there biggest money spinners and we cant have that now can we

Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't it need at least 14 chairman to agree to anything so the us and them is a little paranoid is it not?

I'd be interested to see what the exact criteria were for the fine. Is it the quality of the players, or the number of changes? I suspect they'll have consulted the top four's lawyers in advance, so as to make sure it can never be used as a precedent against them.

Lord Kangana wrote:I'd be interested to see what the exact criteria were for the fine. Is it the quality of the players, or the number of changes? I suspect they'll have consulted the top four's lawyers in advance, so as to make sure it can never be used as a precedent against them.

It can't be this, unless I've missed the rule in which you have to inform the Premier League of your 18 best players at the start of the season

Mad Mick screwed up they paid the price, pittance!!!!!

Hobinho wrote:Mad Mick screwed up they paid the price, pittance!!!!!

No he didn't. Whatsoever. They won the corresponding game. Job done.

Hobinho wrote:

bwfc1979 wrote:the old one rule for them and another for us is the only rule the pemier league understands they cant go changing it it might harm there biggest money spinners and we cant have that now can we

Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't it need at least 14 chairman to agree to anything so the us and them is a little paranoid is it not?

not one bit are you saying the prem isnt biased and corrupt

I think they'll probably go bankrupt on the strength of that fine.

It's probably less than Chelsea pay the kit-man per week.

Its probably less than West Ham pay the kit-man per week.

If I'm understanding the word "suspended" correctly, then they don't even have to pay the fine unless they do it again.

Sort of like Chelsea's "suspended" 3 point deduction for the Ashley Cole incident, that curiously wasn't invoked in the wake of Kakuta-gate.

Last day of the season, United have the title in the bag and are preparing for their next game but Hull City are playing for tens of £millions

Kuszczak

Rafael
De Laet
Neville
Brown

Gibson
Martin
Fletcher
Welbeck

Macheda
Nani

Athers wrote:Last day of the season, United have the title in the bag and are preparing for their next game but Hull City are playing for tens of £millions

Kuszczak

Rafael
De Laet
Neville
Brown

Gibson
Martin
Fletcher
Welbeck

Macheda
Nani

Indeed.. Imagine the scenario, where Hull turned that team over. Newcastle then beat Villa. Newcastle went down because of Man United's weakened team. didn't happen, but oh so could have