Mowbray’s Future

[AllRoverAsia]

The man I feel most for in this shambles is Tony Mowbray.

He took over a team who were headed for certain relegation and over 14 games has on fact worked wonders. If he had come in prior to Christmas we would be ok now.

We may still have been relegated but he got us a chance at safety.

Huddersfields action have dealt Tony a bad hand.

[NinjaTattoo]

26 minutes ago, Stuart said:

What has the Premier League got to do with anything?

all under the FA rules the PL made the precedent in 2011

[NinjaTattoo]

9 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

The man I feel most for in this shambles is Tony Mowbray.

He took over a team who were headed for certain relegation and over 14 games has on fact worked wonders. If he had come in prior to Christmas we would be ok now.

We may still have been relegated but he got us a chance at safety.

Huddersfields action have dealt Tony a bad hand.

I dont, he knew 1000% what he was walking into he was given a huge uphill battle to overcome. Save us he's a legend relegated and its not his fault. TM win win situation. If this time in 6 months he's given no money and told to sell everyone then yeah Id say he'd hard done by but fair play for TM to pick up the challenge.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, NinjaTattoo said:

all under the FA rules the PL made the precedent in 2011

It's an EFL rule they've broken isn't it?

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, NinjaTattoo said:

I dont, he knew 1000% what he was walking into he was given a huge uphill battle to overcome. Save us he's a legend relegated and its not his fault. TM win win situation. If this time in 6 months he's given no money and told to sell everyone then yeah Id say he'd hard done by but fair play for TM to pick up the challenge.

He didn't know a relegation rival would be gifted 3 points!!

That is the issue I'm on about.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

It's an EFL rule they've broken isn't it?

Mere detail in the frenzied defence of Huddersfield 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

Mere detail in the frenzied defence of Huddersfield 

I think some are missing the point that they shouldn't have done it in the first place, rather than whatever happens to them now won't affect us.

 

 

[Stuart]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

Mere detail in the frenzied defence of Huddersfield 

It honestly seems like some want Rovers to go down. Not sure if it's to justify not going, to add to list of reasons to hate Venkys or simple masochism.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, Stuart said:

It honestly seems like some want Rovers to go down. Not sure if it's to justify not going, to add to list of reasons to hate Venkys or simple masochism.

Some others cannot separate our existing problems/Venkys from this Huddersfied action.

It is like its ok as Vs have made us crap and we deserve punishment.

My view is that Huddersfied have knowingly interferred in the normal 'ebb and flow' of a relegation battle in favour of one participant and to the detriment of 2 others who can legitimately argue that a rival has been gifted 3 points at a pivotal time...just one game left FFS.

It just so happens that our team Rovers is one of those adversely affected as are Forest.

IF people cannot see that then they need to give their heads a serious wobble.

Edited May 2, 2017 by AllRoverAsia

[blueboy3333]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

Some others cannot separate our existing problems/Venkys from this Huddersfied action.

It is like its ok as Vs have made us crap and we deserve punishment.

My view is that Huddersfied have knowingly interferred in the normal 'ebb and flow' of a relegation battle in favour of one participant and to the detriment of 2 others who can legitimately argue that a rival has been gifted 3 points at a pivotal time...just one game left FFS.

It just so happens that our team Rovers is one of those adversely affected as are Forest.

IF people cannot see that then they need to give their heads a serious wobble.

Exactly.

I'm amazed our fans are trying to justify it.

[den]

I think a manager has a duty to everyone, to field a team who he believes is strong enough to win a game. That's open to interpretation of course, but the alternative is to allow managers to throw a game - or to put it another way, to concede the game. Im fairly sure that's how  leagues have judged these things before and that's how Huddersfield will be judged and rightly so.

[JohnD]

Quote

The statement makes it quite clear that the result will stand and that any action will be taken directly against HTFC. Previous transgressors have been fined.

 

[NinjaTattoo]

1 hour ago, AllRoverAsia said:

He didn't know a relegation rival would be gifted 3 points!!

That is the issue I'm on about.

if it was brentford this sunday would you complain.

fact of the matter is teams have been doing it for years whilst some teams didnt break any rules per say other teams get punished for this big grey area of a rule.

Quote

Two Premier League Examples: The Quality of Your ‘Second String’

Below are two examples of heavy rotation by United and Liverpool. The context of the United example, was that they had just won the PL with one game to spare. They played Hull on Sunday 24 May 2009 ahead of the Champions League Final against Barcelona just three days later. Nine days earlier United put out its strongest team against Arsenal because at that stage the race for the title with Liverpool was still up for grabs. Once United had secured the PL title they rotated 10 of the starting 11 players for the trip to Hull.

Arsenal vs Manchester Utd 15 May 2009	Hull v Manchester United 24 May 2009
Van der Sar	Kuszczak
O’Shea	Rafael Da Silva
Vidic	Brown,
Evans	Neville
Evra	De Leat
Ronaldo	Nani
Fletcher	Fletcher
Carrick	Gibson
Giggs	Welbeck
Rooney	Martin
Tevez	Macheda

Alex Ferguson made ten changes for the Hull game but was not sanctioned by the PL (this was the same number of changes as Wolves made against United for the match it was found to have breached PL Rules). This begs the question whether the fact that the United players playing Hull included Nani, Fletcher, Brown and Neville who were all internationals playing in United’s ‘weakened’ team influenced the PL in ignoring United’s failure to put out its ‘full strength’ team?

Liverpool made nine changes from the team that had previously beaten Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final four days prior to their PL game against Fulham. Even with those changes the starting 11facing Fulham contained 9 internationals. Arbeloa and Insua were the only two who at that time had not represented their country although both have subsequently been called up for Spain and Argentina respectively.

Liverpool v Chelsea (Champions League semi-final second leg) 1.5.07	Fulham v Liverpool (PL match) 5.5.07
Reina	Reina
Finnan	Arbeloa
Agger	Paletta
Riise	Hyypia
Carragher	Insua
Pennant	Pennant
Gerrard	Alonso
Zenden	Sissoko
Mascherano	Gonzalez
Kuyt	Fowler
Crouch	Bellamy

Even with nine and ten changes made, international class players were still present in both Liverpool and United’s ‘weakened’ team. What is certain is that any managers ability to change his staring line up will depend on how strong the clubs playing squad is.

Unfortunately and crucially for understanding how these issues will be dealt with by the PL in the future, the PL did not make its full decision in the Wolves case public so we cannot assess how the disciplinary Board measured what constitutes Wolves’ full strength team and whether they dealt with the apparent inconsistencies highlighted in this bulletin.

Objective Assessments

There are a number of relevant factors that could be used in assessing whether a PL club is fielding its “full strength” team.

A basic measure of a club’s full strength team might be to base it on the players that start the most number of PL games for the club. A team that is not at full strength team would fail to contain many of the players that have started the most PL games for a club. In the case of Wolves it would mean assessing how many of the team that played United where amongst Wolves’ top eleven starters since Wolves had returned to the PL. However, this alone is clearly too crude a measure as it fails to factor in player unavailability due to injury, international duty or having only recently being signed to the club.

and again my argument is how do you determin which player is stronger or weaker than another.

Whats next a club getting fined for playing 541...

[JHRover]

4 hours ago, Oldgregg86 said:

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

So you're ok with teams breaking the rules? The motivation behind it and the consequences of it are irrelevant. The rule is there, they broke it, they should be punished and so should any other team that makes 10 changes between matches and has a manager that admits to resting his biggest players.

[NinjaTattoo]

Huddersfield
13Coleman
14Cranie
5Hudson
12Holmes-Dennis
4Whitehead
8Billing
18Lolley Substituted forWellsat 59'minutes
16Payne Substituted forBrownat 72'minutes
23Quaner

27Stankovic

17van La Parra Substituted forKachungaat 59'minutes

Huddersfield
13Coleman
14Cranie
5Hudson Substituted forMooyat 67'minutes
12Holmes-DennisBooked at 32minsSubstituted forWellsat 45'minutes
4Whitehead
8Billing
18Lolley
16Payne
23QuanerBooked at 57mins

2Smith

11Bunn Substituted forScannellat 67'minutes
 

1 played against Man City 

1 Played against Birmingham

at no point did the BBC website say it was a weaker side that faced ManCity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38940051

[Stuart]

Just now, NinjaTattoo said:

Huddersfield
13Coleman
14Cranie
5Hudson
12Holmes-Dennis
4Whitehead
8Billing
18Lolley Substituted forWellsat 59'minutes
16Payne Substituted forBrownat 72'minutes
23Quaner

27Stankovic

17van La Parra Substituted forKachungaat 59'minutes

Huddersfield
13Coleman
14Cranie
5Hudson Substituted forMooyat 67'minutes
12Holmes-DennisBooked at 32minsSubstituted forWellsat 45'minutes
4Whitehead
8Billing
18Lolley
16Payne
23QuanerBooked at 57mins

2Smith

11Bunn Substituted forScannellat 67'minutes
 

1 played against Man City 

1 Played against Birmingham

at no point did the BBC website say it was a weaker side that faced ManCity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38940051

Given what happened last weekend, don't you think that it's highly plausible that Huddersfield played a weakened side against City in the cup knowing they were very unlikely to win and the priority was the league?

Using City is a bad example. Number of games each have played in the league would tell the real tale.

[JHRover]

Two points there. What Huddersfield do in the FA Cup is a matter for the FA and not the 'EFL'.

Most importantly what Huddersfield do in the FA Cup in a replay they were 99% certain to lose regardless isn't the same as what they do in a league game on the penultimate game of the season when the opposition are embroiled in a relegation dogfight and are placed to gain an advantage from that selection compared to their rivals.

The reason the rule is there is to try and protect the integrity of the league and ensure there are no accusations of certain teams benefiting from teams fielding weakened sides.

If Brentford decided to make 10 changes on Sunday compared to the team that drew at Fulham last week then I would expect them to be punished also, as would every Forest and Birmingham fan. 

[RevidgeBlue]

This is being discussed on the Sports Bar with Goldstein and Cundy. They can't even see why the EFL have written to Huddersfield and seem unaware that there is a rule against fielding weakened sides. 5 mins to ring up and have your say if you want.

[NinjaTattoo]

2 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Given what happened last weekend, don't you think that it's highly plausible that Huddersfield played a weakened side against City in the cup knowing they were very unlikely to win and the priority was the league?

 

Maybe so but in BOTH cases viable. Im not saying Hudd's did/didnot purposely exploit the 'rules' tbh this rule is BS, as long as you play your legal squad then every team has the choice of who to play and not play.

What if it was England fielding a 2nd 'string' to to finish 2nd in the group to play the winners of Group A who for Eg was Austrailia instead of Spain.

[Stuart]

Just now, NinjaTattoo said:

Maybe so but in BOTH cases viable. Im not saying Hudd's did/didnot purposely exploit the 'rules' tbh this rule is BS, as long as you play your legal squad then every team has the choice of who to play and not play.

What if it was England fielding a 2nd 'string' to to finish 2nd in the group to play the winners of Group A who for Eg was Austrailia instead of Spain.

It's not 'viable' if they aren't trying to compete in the fixture.

I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you - and a few others. But there can be no argument about the breach of the rules. It's just a shame that the only beneficiaries of this mess - including the applied remedies - is Birmingham and Harry Bloody Redknapp.

[NinjaTattoo]

9 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Two points there. What Huddersfield do in the FA Cup is a matter for the FA and not the 'EFL'.

Most importantly what Huddersfield do in the FA Cup in a replay they were 99% certain to lose regardless isn't the same as what they do in a league game on the penultimate game of the season when the opposition are embroiled in a relegation dogfight and are placed to gain an advantage from that selection compared to their rivals.

The reason the rule is there is to try and protect the integrity of the league and ensure there are no accusations of certain teams benefiting from teams fielding weakened sides.

If Brentford decided to make 10 changes on Sunday compared to the team that drew at Fulham last week then I would expect them to be punished also, as would every Forest and Birmingham fan. 

7 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Two points there. What Huddersfield do in the FA Cup is a matter for the FA and not the 'EFL'.

Most importantly what Huddersfield do in the FA Cup in a replay they were 99% certain to lose regardless isn't the same as what they do in a league game

I wasnt saying about the governing body on if they can punish or not I was implying we are talking about ethics of the manager, its all the same no matter if its EFL or FA.

 

the opposition are embroiled in a relegation dogfight

They are there because of a 40+ plus season that they cant win enough games to survive, Huddersfield IMHO rested their players to finish off the season in the play offs playing the extra games that other teams due to not being able to win enough games have missed out on. How that reflects on the peasants below isnt on the mind of the Hudderfield manager.

[NinjaTattoo]

Just now, Stuart said:

Bloody Redknapp.

Daughter in law is fit tho.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, NinjaTattoo said:

I wasnt saying about the governing body on if they can punish or not I was implying we are talking about ethics of the manager, its all the same no matter if its EFL or FA.

 

the opposition are embroiled in a relegation dogfight

They are there because of a 40+ plus season that they cant win enough games to survive, Huddersfield IMHO rested their players to finish off the season in the play offs playing the extra games that other teams due to not being able to win enough games have missed out on. How that reflects on the peasants below isnt on the mind of the Hudderfield manager.

...which is irrelevant to the fact that Huddersfield purposefully fielded a 2nd string and if they hadn't Rovers would possibly be above a Brum in freefall and on the verge of securing our Championship status. We'll never know because Huddersfield broke the rules.

It's also irrelevant why Huddersfield did it.

Edited May 2, 2017 by blueboy3333

[47er]

What Huddersfield did was probably to send us down. Relegation should not be a lottery, depending on which team you play when.

The problem is that the punishment ie a fine, is nowhere near sufficient to deter would-be wrong-doers and every year sees the rule broken with impunity. And the football authorities do nothing as usual.

In the end though, we are in this vulnerable position because of short-comings throughout the squad and throughout the Club which have been obvious and nothing was done about them either.

[RevidgeBlue]

Whilst I have defended Huddersfield's right to do the best for themselves, someone made a very good point earlier in the thread about how they have to do the same in the remaining League games, be consistent to their principles and take any consequent financial hit on the chin. Otherwise it moves away from looking after your own interests to favouring one particular team.

Just to play devil's advocate, a Huddersfield fan came on the radio and said the "first strength" side has actually been in pretty poor form recently including getting thrashed by Fulham so he felt the manager was we'll within his rights to make the changes to freshen things up anyway.