Reply to: Warnock on the warpath

[wonderwaif]

As an observation, of course he has a point. Are you saying it is not true that his team were disadvantaged by top teams going into resting mode against his relegation rivals?

It happens every year to someone - that's not to say there was anything untoward. It is just tough on him, and I'm sure he'd do the same in reverse.

I believe Neil Warnock would accept that he lets his emotions get the better of him in after match interviews. The man is a fan of the club, not a mercenary.
Other managers lambast the officials and do not acknowledge the good play of their opposition without attracting the vilification that Warnock gets.

[wendigo100]

He has no point at all. It is part of the equation and the dynamics of how competitive sport works. If clubs are going to try and play catch up at th end of the season then this is just one of those things that happens and there is nothing wrong with it. The key question is if the situation were reversed, ie Warnock was at the other end of the table, would he be throwing in his strongest team just to be "fair". Of course he would not.

As an observation, of course he has a point. Are you saying it is not true that his team were disadvantaged by top teams going into resting mode against his relegation rivals?

It happens every year to someone - that's not to say there was anything untoward. It is just tough on him, and I'm sure he'd do the same in reverse.

[AtW]

"Tevez and Mascherano, who has since joined Liverpool, were part-owned by Media Sports Investment, the company formerly run by Iranian-born businessman Kia Joorabchian - contravening league rules over third-party ownership."

If West Ham checked history of this guy and his antics in Russia then they would have been wise to choose not to deal with them. Or maybe not - like reputation matters a bit when big money is on offer: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1781346.ece

"Tory grandees are among those backing one of the most controversial business empires on the planet

AMONG the ranks of the great and good, few come greater: a retired foreign secretary; a former British ambassador to Moscow; a man credited with having helped to build one of Britain’s most high-profile companies; the former chief executive of a leading European telecoms equipment manufacturer; plus a couple of well-connected Washington insiders."

I can understand and accept people who have no money to buy food to their family to engage in crime and have zero scruples, but one would imagine already wealthy people who don't need a lot more money would have top notch character and will value their reputation - not so, it's just a matter of amount of money, ffs!

[wonderwaif]

Didn't Sheff U field a weak team against Man U, as they thought they had a better chance the following game against Charlton.... they can't have their cake and eat it...

No. There were several changes from the previous weeks team.
1 was Chris Morgan the club captain who came back after suspension, a couple were genuine injuries, (i.e. Rob Hulse who was out for the rest of the season), and a couple were players who had been signed for substantial, (in SUFC terms), sums in the January window, (i.e. Luton Shelton who cost the best part of 2 mill).
There is no evidence that SUFC fielded an understrength team in any league game, (although most would say our first team WAS under strength).
HTH

[wonderwaif]

Speaking as a Blade I have no problem with other teams fielding whatever players they like.
It's a long season and clubs have large squads to enable them to get through it.
Neil Warnock had no interest in the FA Cup and fielded a second string team for it, (although I don't believe the other clubs suffered because we let Swansea go an extra round). so other teams can do the same as far as I am concerned.
I'm all for the relegation battle being decided on the pitch. The problem is it was decided by a player who should not have been on it.
Over the season the table does not lie, and the table says that West Ham would have been relegated if it was not for the contribution that Tevez made.
People may not like Sheffield United and/or Neil Warnock, but nothing changes that fact.

[woo]

warnock would blame the referee and line-o if his car broke down.
sean bean was slagging him off on ssn.

[Bagpuss]

If you go down to conference level, Altrincham were docked points for fielding an ineligible player. Another team were relegated for not having transfered membership (from the old club to the new ltd) within a deadline, after already being docked 10 points for going into administration.

One rule for one, eh?

[BoredBloke]

"All that is true, but the point still stands - West ham and Fulham benefitted from it and SU didn't."

This siuation only came about because of how the whole season had panned out. Had it been different and Man U and Liverpool were both competing for the title up to the last day then Warnock would have had the easier run in.

To me it is totally understandable to put out a weaker side if you are preparing for a massive game, as in the case of Liverpool. If yoU were the Liverpool manager, would you risk your first 11 for a meaningless game against a team at the foot of the table. Imagine the criticism they would have got if they had played Gerrard and ge got injured, ruling him out for the big one

[DodgyAgent]

So Sheffield United go down.


And he's got a point about Man United and Liverpool fielding weakened teams against his rivals.

He has no point at all. It is part of the equation and the dynamics of how competitive sport works. If clubs are going to try and play catch up at th end of the season then this is just one of those things that happens and there is nothing wrong with it. The key question is if the situation were reversed, ie Warnock was at the other end of the table, would he be throwing in his strongest team just to be "fair". Of course he would not.

[Moscow Mule]

I agree, but you can't have people breaking rules when they feel like it.

Agreed, but I think the 5.5M quid was a fair sum. The rule they broke wasn't about a player still being registered with another club, but that a third party still had an interest - a rule specifically designed to prevent match fixing.

Since no evidence of match fixing has come to light (and if it did I would bust them down to the conference) they have broken the letter, but not the spirit of the law, probably beacause they were desperate to get them signed by the deadline.

Since the club is now under new management & ownership, in this case I can see a distinction and think 5.5M quid is fair.

[wendigo100]

You obviously have more sympathy for them than I do. Apologies for any offence caused

No worries, at least I'm not an Owl!

League positions should be sorted on the field, not the courts.

I agree, but you can't have people breaking rules when they feel like it.

Last season:

Altrincham have had 18 points deducted by the Conference and have been fined £1,000 for fielding an ineligible player earlier this season.

"The problem only emerged because he went from us to Australia," an Altrincham spokesman said.

"The first we knew of the problem was when they (Richmond) came back to us and said they had discovered he was still registered to play in Iceland when he signed for Accrington."

[The Lone Gunman]

What is all this bulltulip about ManUre and the thieving pikey b**tards putting out weakened teams?

Surely, had SU played better earlier in the season they would not be going down.

The season doesnt rely on one game, if it did we could get it over with in one weekend.

As others have said, if the benefit had gone the other way Warlock woul dnot be complaining. Had the season gone to the wire then West Ham would not have survived. Thats football.

Notwithstanding, AIUI WHU should be docked points for the dodgy dealings, just like other teams.

[edit]Fielding weak teams should be an offence too. The fans dont pay to watch the B team.

[FiveTimes]

Liverpool have not put out their strongest 11 since they got passed Chelsea and why would they when they are in the campions league final. Man U have rested their stars also because they have the FA cup in their sights and want to do the double. Warnock would not have been moaning if the boot had been on the other foot and it was his team which benefited.

Agree that West Ham should have had points docked though.

Didn't Sheff U field a weak team against Man U, as they thought they had a better chance the following game against Charlton.... they can't have their cake and eat it...

[wendigo100]

Liverpool have not put out their strongest 11 since they got passed Chelsea and why would they when they are in the campions league final. Man U have rested their stars also because they have the FA cup in their sights and want to do the double. Warnock would not have been moaning if the boot had been on the other foot and it was his team which benefited.

All that is true, but the point still stands - West ham and Fulham benefitted from it and SU didn't.

[rootsnall]

The decision on the fine was by an independant panel, I don't think you can blame the FA / Premier League.

It appears the Argi players were ineligible and the 'independant panel' was setup to fudge matters. I don't think they'll get away with it. It'll either be West Ham down or a big pay off for Sheff Utd not to take it to court. I'm not sure of Sheff Utd's finances but I suspect a pay off might be the solution.