Mowbray’s Future

[AllRoverAsia]

Completely wrong and missing the issue. I had my say and not wasting brain cells on this. Bloody baffling and frustrating because I'm right 

Edited May 2, 2017 by AllRoverAsia

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, DE. said:

It's completely, not mostly. Huddersfield have nothing to do with us failing to win 34 out of 45 of this season's matches. That's all Rovers. 

The fact is Huddersfield were losing to our relegation rivals with a full strength team and when they were still chasing something. There's no reason to think a full strength team - most of whom would have been looking to avoid injury - would have fared any better. If the situation was reversed and Rovers had put out an understrength team I doubt we'd be complaining and demanding that the league take severe action against us.

We are where we are because we're a @#/? team with @#/? players, a @#/? manager for most of the season and @#/? owners. Nothing to do with Huddersfield and personally I could not care less how they perform in the playoffs or in the future. Every ounce of anger should be directed towards Venky's and nobody else for leaving us in a position where a team like Huddersfield actually have a say in whether we get relegated or not. 

Were you not saying Shane Duffy was responsible? 

Apologies if I mixed you up with someone else  

[JHRover]

All that matters is that Huddersfield have clearly broken Rule 24.1 and that damages the integrity of the competition.

There can be no denying that. Making 10 changes between Wednesday and Saturday and their own manager admitting he was going to rest players breaks that rule. It is simply impossible that Huddersfield have fielded their strongest team against both Birmingham and Wolves. One or the other wasn't full strength and therefore action should be taken.

As a result they should be punished. If they aren't punished then its yet another example in a long line of occasions when the authorities in this country turn a blind eye to their own rules being broken. They might as well erase that rule if so.

It isn't really a question of whether it has harmed our survival changes or whether Huddersfield are partly to blame if we go down. It's a question of whether they have broken the rules and whether the League have the balls to do anything about it other than dish out a nominal fine and line their own pockets in the process.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

Were you not saying Shane Duffy was responsible? 

Apologies if I mixed you up with someone else  

I certainly was 

Shane and Huddersfield's parts in our miserable horror movie of a season will all feature in the upcoming Bollywood blockbuster "Madame Desai's A Series of Totally Avoidable Events" produced and directed by Barry Bling.

Paul Senior will play Count Olaf.

[JHRover]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

I certainly was 

Shane and Huddersfield's parts in our miserable horror movie of a season will all feature in the upcoming Bollywood blockbuster "Madame Desai's A Series of Totally Avoidable Events" produced and directed by Barry Bling.

Paul Senior will play Count Olaf.

Mike Cheston will play Mr Poe. Nothing wrong here children, everything's fine.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, JHRover said:

Mike Cheston will play Mr Poe. Nothing wrong here children, everything's fine.

Recasting announcement : Suhail Pasha will now play Count Olaf and Paul Senior is recast as the "Person of Indeterminate Gender" one of Count Olaf's minions.

[ruggles1995]

as much as I was/am peed off with how huddersfield approached that game against brum, but in fairness they earnt the right to do that. They have themselves in a postion to do what the hell they like. Im not a fan of the rule even being in, its disrespectful to the players hes picked. The rule may as well say if you pick players we dont think are any good then we will fine your club. There professional footballers on contracts to there clubs, there a huddersfield town football player, there allowed to play if selected. Our season shouldnt be based on huddersfield v brum. If we go down its because we deserve to! This rule may as well fine rovers every week for players not being good enough to wear the shirt, because thats basically what this rule implies, players picked not being good enough to wear the shirt.

[DE.]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Were you not saying Shane Duffy was responsible? 

Apologies if I mixed you up with someone else  

Not me, I don't think I've posted about that airheaded buffoon since he left the club.

[Bigdoggsteel]

3 minutes ago, DE. said:

Not me, I don't think I've posted about that airheaded buffoon since he left the club.

Ha ha, a fair description. 

[speeeeeeedie]

12 hours ago, JHRover said:

Again, the issue for me here isn't Huddersfield's decision to make wholesale changes so much as the failure on the part of the EFL to enforce their own rules.

I know that the reason we're in this position is mostly to do with our own clubs horrendous failings over the last few years. 

But the fact remains that there is a rule in place in black and white that clearly states that full strength sides should be fielded at all times. 

I can't see how Huddersfield can argue they didn't rest players, and thus broke the rule. Of course we know why they did it, but that doesn't mean the rule should be ignored. We'll get the typical outcome - a nominal fine to top up the bank balance down at London HQ and to tick the box of taking action.

I'm in the Huddersfield did nothing wrong camp.

I also agree that the rule is a farce. The club manager should have discretion on what team he puts out. The rule falls down on the definition of full strength. Professional players at a club on contract should be deemed good enough even if they don't play every week. They have a contract with that club hence they should be in the reckoning to play.

What if Wagner had come out and said that his first XI were hit with food poisoning after a dodgy lasagna the night before the game?

Rovers predicament is nothing to do with Huddersfield playing a "weakened" side against Birmingham. Home losses against the likes of Barnsley, and the common occurrence of conceding goals late on under Coyle are far more significant than another team's performance.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by speeeeeeedie

[donnermeat]

With regards to this rule, I don't see how it could ever be enforced. Who are the Football League to say 'player A' is officially a better player than 'player B'? There are no official ranking systems for players, it's not possible, so I don't see how they could dictate to a club which of their players are better than others.

Add all the other variables when it comes to a selecting a team, injuries/niggles, opposing personnel etc then I can't see how the Football League could get anywhere with that rule.

[Neil Weaver]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

All that matters is that Huddersfield have clearly broken Rule 24.1 and that damages the integrity of the competition.

There can be no denying that. Making 10 changes between Wednesday and Saturday and their own manager admitting he was going to rest players breaks that rule. It is simply impossible that Huddersfield have fielded their strongest team against both Birmingham and Wolves. One or the other wasn't full strength and therefore action should be taken.

As a result they should be punished. If they aren't punished then its yet another example in a long line of occasions when the authorities in this country turn a blind eye to their own rules being broken. They might as well erase that rule if so.

It isn't really a question of whether it has harmed our survival changes or whether Huddersfield are partly to blame if we go down. It's a question of whether they have broken the rules and whether the League have the balls to do anything about it other than dish out a nominal fine and line their own pockets in the process.

Exactly right JH.  We all have an opinion on it and the effect, the fact is there is a rule.  If they've broken that rule, they've got to be punished.  What we can all agree on though is any sort or punishment will be trivial and won't have any bearing on us.  It'll just be used by the FA to buy a few more bottles of claret.

[Cherry Blue]

Just now, donnermeat said:

With It'sards to this rule, I don't  see how it could ever be enforced. Who are the Football League to say 'player A' is officially a better player than 'player B'? There are no official ranking systems for players, it's not possible, so I don't see how they could dictate to a club which of their players are better than others.

Add all the other variables when it comes to a selecting a team, injuries/niggles, opposing personnel etc then I can't see how the Football League could get anywhere with that rule.

Yes but to take 10 players out! They broke the rule and should be punished.

[RevidgeBlue]

Don't think there's any doubt Huddersfield have technically breached the FA rule and as such should be fined.

However I really don't think Huddersfield have done anything wrong. In this particular instance, they have far more important things to worry about of their own than whether Birmingham Forest or us go down.

If they had had nothing at all to play for and made ten changes I would be much less sympathetic. But even then, if a team is safe, who are the FA or other Clubs really to dictate whether or not the manager in question can or can't try some youngsters out for example?

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Don't think there's any doubt Huddersfield have technically breached the FA rule and as such should be fined.

However I really don't think Huddersfield have done anything wrong. In this particular instance, they have far more important things to worry about of their own than whether Birmingham Forest or us go down.

If they had had nothing at all to play for and made ten changes I would be much less sympathetic. But even then, if a team is safe, who are the FA or other Clubs really to dictate whether or not the manager in question can or can't try some youngsters out for example?

Changing 10 players isn't trying some youngsters, its giving your entire starting 11, minus the keeper,  the week off. 

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

No problem - as long as  Huddersfield line up with the same team this week.  Ater all, they don't want injuries and need to maximise the recovery time of the first 11.  Anything else would surely be hypocritical...

[roverandout]

Where i stand. Wagner was giving squad players the chance to get some match sharpness. As managers always say, its a squad game. Imagine if they picked up one or two injuries how do you expect their backup players to get match sharpness?

[Oldgregg86]

6 hours ago, JHRover said:

All that matters is that Huddersfield have clearly broken Rule 24.1 and that damages the integrity of the competition.

There can be no denying that. Making 10 changes between Wednesday and Saturday and their own manager admitting he was going to rest players breaks that rule. It is simply impossible that Huddersfield have fielded their strongest team against both Birmingham and Wolves. One or the other wasn't full strength and therefore action should be taken.

As a result they should be punished. If they aren't punished then its yet another example in a long line of occasions when the authorities in this country turn a blind eye to their own rules being broken. They might as well erase that rule if so.

It isn't really a question of whether it has harmed our survival changes or whether Huddersfield are partly to blame if we go down. It's a question of whether they have broken the rules and whether the League have the balls to do anything about it other than dish out a nominal fine and line their own pockets in the process.

I will remind you of this next season when we have two important league games and a Johnson paint trophy game sandwiched between. See who really cares then

[blueboy3333]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39786607

Ha! the EFL have written to request Huddersfieldsaweakenedteam's observations on cheating. 

[NinjaTattoo]

I dont see any problem with what Huddersfield did.

 

If I had 25 players for the senior squad I should be able to pick who the hell I want for a match, as mentioned whos to say 1 player is better than another?

Quote

The 20 Premier League clubs agreed at their AGM in early June that any combination of players named in their registered 25-man squads will be able to start a match.

Quote

The rule has not been totally withdrawn, and clubs will still be at risk of a fine if they select a number of younger players from outside their 25-man squad.

and this is where the rule could be abused but if for eg TM should be able to pick from ANY of the following

• 1Jason Steele (G)
• 33David Raya Martin (G)
• 37Andrew Fisher (G)
• 2Adam Henley (D)
• 3Gordon Greer (D)
• 4Tommy Hoban (D)
• 5Derrick Williams (D)
• 14Charlie Mulgrew (D)
• 15Elliott Ward (D)
• 20Stephen Hendrie (D)
• 24Ryan Nyambe (D)
• 30Wes Brown (D)
• 36Jack Doyle (D)
• 42Lewis Travis (D)
• 6Jason Lowe (M)
• 7Liam Feeney (M)
• 18Lucas Joao (M)
• 21Hope Akpan (M)
• 23Danny Guthrie (M)
• 26Darragh Lenihan (M)
• 27Willem Tomlinson (M)
• 28Connor Mahoney (M)
• 29Corry Evans (M)
• 31Elliott Bennett (M)
• 32Craig Conway (M)
• 9Anthony Stokes (F)
• 12Danny Graham (F)
• 17Marvin Emnes (F)
• 19Sam Gallagher (F)

if Huddersfield started with the under 18's then fair enough.

Quote

spokesman at the Premier League said: "The 25-man squad rules do allow clubs to pick under-21 players beyond those named in their squad list and, with this in mind, it was agreed by the clubs that it was appropriate for the rule to remain in place in order to ensure the integrity of the competition."

Last November, Blackpool drew 2-2 at home to Everton, before Holloway then made 10 changes to his starting line up for a match at Aston Villa four days later.

Blackpool lost the match at Villa Park 3-2, with Holloway giving six players their first start in the Premier League.

Holloway defended his selection, saying at the time: "I've got every right to do what I like. Who are they to tell me my players are not good enough?"

He added that the players brought in had cost the club a lot of money, some of whom were internationals.

After the Premier League studied Holloway's selection Blackpool were fined £25,000 in January for distorting the integrity of the competition, a fine they later appealed.

Huddersfield Town have 26 men registered in their first team squad, with every player other than Luke Coddington and Regan Booty making an appearance this season.

Edited May 2, 2017 by NinjaTattoo

[Bigdoggsteel]

Lol Regan Booty

Edited May 2, 2017 by Bigdoggsteel

[AllRoverAsia]

31 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39786607

Ha! the EFL have written to request Huddersfieldsaweakenedteam's observations on cheating. 

If Huddersfied and Wagner are as squeaky clean as many on here seem to think then why have the EFL even bothered.

It's their team so they can do what they want and its ok. Rules ignore them.

Just like owning a Club.

Edited May 2, 2017 by AllRoverAsia

[Stuart]

5 minutes ago, NinjaTattoo said:

I dont see any problem with what Huddersfield did.

 

If I had 25 players for the senior squad I should be able to pick who the hell I want for a match, as mentioned whos to say 1 player is better than another?

and this is where the rule could be abused but if for eg TM should be able to pick from ANY of the following

• 1Jason Steele (G)
• 33David Raya Martin (G)
• 37Andrew Fisher (G)
• 2Adam Henley (D)
• 3Gordon Greer (D)
• 4Tommy Hoban (D)
• 5Derrick Williams (D)
• 14Charlie Mulgrew (D)
• 15Elliott Ward (D)
• 20Stephen Hendrie (D)
• 24Ryan Nyambe (D)
• 30Wes Brown (D)
• 36Jack Doyle (D)
• 42Lewis Travis (D)
• 6Jason Lowe (M)
• 7Liam Feeney (M)
• 18Lucas Joao (M)
• 21Hope Akpan (M)
• 23Danny Guthrie (M)
• 26Darragh Lenihan (M)
• 27Willem Tomlinson (M)
• 28Connor Mahoney (M)
• 29Corry Evans (M)
• 31Elliott Bennett (M)
• 32Craig Conway (M)
• 9Anthony Stokes (F)
• 12Danny Graham (F)
• 17Marvin Emnes (F)
• 19Sam Gallagher (F)

if Huddersfield started with the under 18's then fair enough.

Huddersfield Town have 26 men registered in their first team squad, with every player other than Luke Coddington and Regan Booty making an appearance this season.

What has the Premier League got to do with anything?

[gumboots]

Huddersfield have broken a rule and should be punished. Will that punishment be one that makes a happorth of difference to us? Of course not! How can it be? 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

If Huddersfied and Wagner are as squeaky clean as many on here seem to think then why have the EFL even bothered.

It's there team so they can do what they want and its ok.

Just like owning a Club.

Even though there is a specific rule against fielding a weakened team in the EFL, so what? Get over it. We shouldn't have lost loads of other games. To try and make up for it Rovers are going to field a selection of Barca and Real Madrid players against Brentford. There is a rule against it but sod it, Forest shouldn't have lost to somebody else sometime in November. It's their own fault if Messi bags a brace and Ronaldo gets four.