Since when can the premier league pick your squad for you?
It can not, it can not see what happens in training and it can not tell a manger that he can not drop players because he wants to.
The Premier league have placed a rule in their book that can not be enforced so no rule has been broken the 11 players he picked to play last night got beat 3 nil the team that Wigan picked to play spuds got beat by how many 8 or 9 wasnt it,
one team played its first 11 one never you pick what one
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Were all his players last night first team squad members???
Yes then he has broken no rule,
Premier league rule 20 is about as enforcable as a murderer getting a full life sentence it wil never happen
Exactly. At the start of a season each team has to register a squad with the Premier league. Therefore surely McCarthy can use any of his squad in any game he chooses.
Errrrrr. No he can`t. See Plaaayers post above
Yes i saw his post and i know the rule but it has never, and will never happen. Teams rest players all the time.
[cite]From the Guardian's Fiver[/cite]Going by the way some people have been moaning about the reserve side fielded by Wolves at Old Trafford last night, you could be forgiven for thinking Mick McCarthy had driven an empty minibus around the streets of Wolverhampton yesterday afternoon and asked the first 11 able-bodied men he encountered if they fancied playing football against Manchester United.
Strange as it may seem, those men that eventually lost 3-0 are all highly-paid professional footballers who have actually played the game before, often to a standard high enough to earn them inclusion in the senior squad of a club kicking around the lower reaches of the Premier League. Nevertheless, McCarthy has been roundly booed and hissed for sending out an unrecognisable team that had absolutely no chance of getting a result against the champions, mainly by myopic Wolves supporters and pundits who have swooned like Victorian ladies because they think he was duty-bound to send out a more recognisable side that had absolutely no chance of getting a result against the champions.
The moaning of Wolves fans who've been complaining about wasting money travelling to support their "reserves" has been particularly revealing, suggesting that many of them think so little of their club they'd have cancelled plans to travel if they'd known their side would comprise of players who needed their support more than the usual first-teamers. When all's said and done, surely cheering on one group of players in orange shirts as they get hammered at the Theatre of Dreams is much the same as cheering on another?
[cite]From the Guardian's Fiver[/cite]Going by the way some people have been moaning about the reserve side fielded by Wolves at Old Trafford last night, you could be forgiven for thinking Mick McCarthy had driven an empty minibus around the streets of Wolverhampton yesterday afternoon and asked the first 11 able-bodied men he encountered if they fancied playing football against Manchester United.
Strange as it may seem, those men that eventually lost 3-0 are all highly-paid professional footballers who have actually played the game before, often to a standard high enough to earn them inclusion in the senior squad of a club kicking around the lower reaches of the Premier League. Nevertheless, McCarthy has been roundly booed and hissed for sending out an unrecognisable team that had absolutely no chance of getting a result against the champions, mainly by myopic Wolves supporters and pundits who have swooned like Victorian ladies because they think he was duty-bound to send out a more recognisable side that had absolutely no chance of getting a result against the champions.
The moaning of Wolves fans who've been complaining about wasting money travelling to support their "reserves" has been particularly revealing, suggesting that many of them think so little of their club they'd have cancelled plans to travel if they'd known their side would comprise of players who needed their support more than the usual first-teamers. When all's said and done, surely cheering on one group of players in orange shirts as they get hammered at the Theatre of Dreams is much the same as cheering on another?
it was within the rules how can they fine him, had he chose to play 10 of his youth team then yes he could be fined, howmany of the 10 have played prem football or chumpionship football, how many did he buy and have a transfer fee attached to them.
i think it is atleast 7 players last night had played in the prem and i am sure most of them were paid for.
how many played in this years wolves fa youth cup team
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]it was within the rules how can they fine him, had he chose to play 10 of his youth team then yes he could be fined, howmany of the 10 have played prem football or chumpionship football, how many did he buy and have a transfer fee attached to them.
i think it is atleast 7 players last night had played in the prem and i am sure most of them were paid for.
how many played in this years wolves fa youth cup team
His strongest team.....He can`t argue that can he.
Prem league " Mick come on what were you playing at agingst Man Utd"
MM " in traning there was a tear up between the midfield and defence, so i dropped 8 of them for the biggest game of the season as punishment and 2 were carrying knocks"
Prem " ok then Mick who are we to tell you how to manage"
MM " right i am fooking off now then "
thats it in a nut shell he can say what he likes there is no one who can say that he didnt pick his strongest 11
that idiot Micheal Parry on Talk Sport thismonrning was arguing its not right because what Mick fielded was not a prem team. Townsend then turns round and says "sorry mike the match last night was Man Utd vs Wolves and Wolves are in the prem making them a prem team so im not sure what your argument is" was well funny at the time.
I thought players, managers and, incredibly as we've occasionally seen, referees ........... have enough trouble interpreting the actual laws of the game, let alone bureaucratic meanderings like, "Premier League Rule number 20"
Evidently it exists, as I'm reminded. But how many professionals in the game are actually familiar with it, and as others have pointed out, how is it enforceable.....? In any case, most Premier League clubs have squads of between 30 and 40 players, all of whom must be deemed as capable of playing to the standard required. It can only be a manager's decision as to which of those 30+ players are selected.
Anybody and everybody who has actually played the game competitively understands that your 11 most talented players rarely make the best team ..... so it's always going to be no more than a personal or even collective opinion as to what constitutes a best team.
But, an opinion isn't a fact....... and thus unenforcable.
Well at least McCarthy can’t complain if one of the top teams at the end of the season plays a weekend side against one of their relegation rivals and loses which ultimately sends Wolves down
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Premier League rule number 20.
Right.
I thought players, managers and, incredibly as we've occasionally seen, referees ........... have enough trouble interpreting the actual laws of the game, let alone bureaucratic meanderings like, "Premier League Rule number 20"
Evidently it exists, as I'm reminded. But how many professionals in the game are actually familiar with it, and as others have pointed out, how is it enforceable.....? In any case, most Premier League clubs have squads of between 30 and 40 players, all of whom must be deemed as capable of playing to the standard required. It can only be a manager's decision as to which of those 30+ players are selected.
Anybody and everybody who has actually played the game competitively understands that your 11 most talented players rarely make the best team ..... so it's always going to be no more than a personal or even collective opinion as to what constitutes a best team.
But, an opinion isn't a fact....... and thus unenforcable.
I see your point, but couldn't it be argued (as a case against him), that the team which he regularly plays (ie. the players who play most games, most of the time) is a suitable measure of his 'strongest side'. I'm sure the Premier League would define the term 'strongest side' in relation to the managers opinion, nobody elses. You can measure this by looking at the side he normally picks.
I think it's therefore totaly enforcable. Obviously it wouldn't happen, but if the Prem chose to take MM to court over this, I'm sure with this argument they would have a very strong case.
It's a stupid rule, but it is a rule. And to some extent, one that he can be shown to have broken.
It is a stupid rule, but it's not part of the laws of the game.
It is an in-house rule, and purely subjective in how it's interpreted - and if in this instance is deemed punishable by a Prem 'Kangaroo Court' committee, it would certainly open the proverbial can of worms on past precedents which have been allowed to go unpunished.
Also, how do you define the point where it's mooted that a weakened team has been played? Again just a matter of opinion.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]You may possibly be right, Si.
It is a stupid rule, but it's not part of the laws of the game.
It is an in-house rule, and purely subjective in how it's interpreted - and if in this instance is deemed punishable by a Prem 'Kangaroo Court' committee, it would certainly open the proverbial can of worms on past precedents which have been allowed to go unpunished.
Also, how do you define the point where it's mooted that a weakened team has been played? Again just a matter of opinion.
Agree with all of that. I cannot see them doing anything about it. If they do, they lend credence to an obviously stupid rule, which creates a precedent they will spend lots of (wasted) time and money trying to enforce. And as you say, there have been lots of cases with the big 4 in the past that have gone unpunished, and they the Prem would then have the tricky task of explaining and defending that!
Imagine, the Premier League release a statement saying that in light of recent events, the rules have been reviewed and rule no. 20 will be removed because it is an unenforcable law. This is the most sensible thing that could come out of this whole event, but the least likely. Most likely is they ask him to explain himself, he will, and it will be brushed under the carpet, or it is totally ignored from the off.
On one level, McCarthy's job is to keep Wolves in the league, and he's doing what he needs to do that. In his judgement he's done what he thinks he needs to do, to achieve that. At the end of the day, he'll probably lose his job if that doesn't happen. This doesn't apply to any of the pundits and fans whining about what he's done.
On the other hand there's been some upsets this year (Wolves at Spurs, Man U at Burnley), so it could be argued that he has a duty towards the rivals of the team that he's throwing in the towel against. As has been said if - say - Hull were playing Chelsea near the end of the season and Chelsea had the league sewn up and threw out a weak team that Hull beat and got enough points to send Wolves down, he'd not have any right to moan.
Maybe they should limit the number of changes a manager's allowed to make?
Wolves are getting a pasting in the media for doing what Liverpool did (with barely a word spoken) against Fulham at the business end of the season we went down from the Prem, I remember that Fulham were in our sights (admittedly we had to do our part too) and that under normal circumstances Liverpool would have slaughtered them and dumped Fulham in major trouble but strangely they were resting key players for the European Cup Final and unpuzzlingly Fulham won! Perhaps the media were a bit slower to slaughter Liverpool but they sure as hell weren't with Wolves. Hmmm one law etc...
I'm not condoning what McCarthy did but I certainly don't recall our Jolly Scouse chums getting a battering for it, so until there is a rule change (and not just for the Premier League either) this will go on and on.
Maybe the same system as the JPT has where each team has to play a certain amount of regulars to ensure the competition is taken seriously. I'm sure if the football league can manage to enforce this ruling then so should the Premier League.
Johnstone’s Paint Trophy Rules:
7.3 Each Club shall play its full available strength in all matches. The Board will from time to time
issue a policy as to what constitutes ‘full available strength’. Any Club failing to meet this
requirement will be required to pay a fine of up to £5,000.
It's still quite a loose definition but it seems to work better than the Premier League's own rules. Obviously £5,000 is nothing but I'm sure the punishment/fine could be changed.
Nobody has mentioned what appears to be a key point here, namely that the league is so skewed in favour of the "big 4" that a manager of a team 18th in the league (so by no means the worst team) feels that no matter what team he put out in a game his side had absolutely no chance of getting a result.
As far as I'm concerned a manager can put out whichever 11 he wants, the gulf between the two 11s he put out this week isn't very big. Far bigger is the league endorsed and created gulf between top and bottom.
[cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]Wolves are getting a pasting in the media for doing what Liverpool did (with barely a word spoken) against Fulham at the business end of the season we went down from the Prem, I remember that Fulham were in our sights (admittedly we had to do our part too) and that under normal circumstances Liverpool would have slaughtered them and dumped Fulham in major trouble but strangely they were resting key players for the European Cup Final and unpuzzlingly Fulham won! Perhaps the media were a bit slower to slaughter Liverpool but they sure as hell weren't with Wolves. Hmmm one law etc...
I'm not condoning what McCarthy did but I certainly don't recall our Jolly Scouse chums getting a battering for it, so until there is a rule change (and not just for the Premier League either) this will go on and on.
Was just about to say the same re Liverpool and Fulham and then saw your post!
This situation fascinates me. Frankly I think that what McCarthy did is outrageous and undermines the whole basis of a league which requires teams to field the strongest available for the benefit of everyone. It's about fairness to all members of the Premier League "club". If teams pick and choose who they particularly care about trying against, in my view the league is finished as a credible entity and it turns it into something akin to WWE where the punters are entertained but the result has been pre-determined.
If we say that nothing can be done about it, we are accepting that for example, "behind closed doors" deals may be arranged to advantage some teams and disadvantage others.
Supposing Club A has a major rival Club B in the same city? A is looking to grow support and be top dog in the area. Club B is struggling to avoid relegation and needs its rivals to lose games. Club A is playing a relegation threatened team on the last day of the season, has nothing much riding on the game and decides to field a weakened team to which it loses, relegating Club B.
This could have been the case in Liverpool/Fulham situation.
If its vitally important to the integrity of the league that clubs cannot play inelligible players, surely it is just as vital that they play their strongest elligible ones?
There is going to be a large amount of interpretation required. Its just like in law. There will be clear examples of fielding strongest sides, clear examples (like Wolves) of fielding weak sides. and a large grey area in the middle. However its clear to me that McCarthy broke the rules. If they have a tribunal set up to hear his case and any mitigation then so be it but he absolutely broke the rules and Wolves should be docked points for having done it. The fact that Liverpool and others did it and it went unpunished is not relevant - two wrongs don't make a right. They cannot/will not be punished retrospectively but Wolves should be sanctioned for what they did.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]This situation fascinates me. Frankly I think that what McCarthy did is outrageous and undermines the whole basis of a league which requires teams to field the strongest available for the benefit of everyone. It's about fairness to all members of the Premier League "club". If teams pick and choose who they particularly care about trying against, in my view the league is finished as a credible entity and it turns it into something akin to WWE where the punters are entertained but the result has been pre-determined.
If we say that nothing can be done about it, we are accepting that for example, "behind closed doors" deals may be arranged to advantage some teams and disadvantage others.
Supposing Club A has a major rival Club B in the same city? A is looking to grow support and be top dog in the area. Club B is struggling to avoid relegation and needs its rivals to lose games. Club A is playing a relegation threatened team on the last day of the season, has nothing much riding on the game and decides to field a weakened team to which it loses, relegating Club B.
This could have been the case in Liverpool/Fulham situation.
If its vitally important to the integrity of the league that clubs cannot play inelligible players, surely it is just as vital that they play their strongest elligible ones?
There is going to be a large amount of interpretation required. Its just like in law. There will be clear examples of fielding strongest sides, clear examples (like Wolves) of fielding weak sides. and a large grey area in the middle. However its clear to me that McCarthy broke the rules. If they have a tribunal set up to hear his case and any mitigation then so be it but he absolutely broke the rules and Wolves should be docked points for having done it. The fact that Liverpool and others did it and it went unpunished is not relevant - two wrongs don't make a right. They cannot/will not be punished retrospectively but Wolves should be sanctioned for what they did.
I agree with you in principle Bing.
However it would be wrong to single Wolves out at this moment in time when, as has been pointed out, previous precedents have gone unpunished.
The answer in my view is for all Premiership Clubs to be circulated in writing during the close season and told that judged abuse of this rule will result in points being forfeited irrespective of which club transgresses.
That way a line has been clearly drawn and clubs should know exactly where they stand from hereon in.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]This situation fascinates me. Frankly I think that what McCarthy did is outrageous and undermines the whole basis of a league which requires teams to field the strongest available for the benefit of everyone. It's about fairness to all members of the Premier League "club". If teams pick and choose who they particularly care about trying against, in my view the league is finished as a credible entity and it turns it into something akin to WWE where the punters are entertained but the result has been pre-determined.
If we say that nothing can be done about it, we are accepting that for example, "behind closed doors" deals may be arranged to advantage some teams and disadvantage others.
Supposing Club A has a major rival Club B in the same city? A is looking to grow support and be top dog in the area. Club B is struggling to avoid relegation and needs its rivals to lose games. Club A is playing a relegation threatened team on the last day of the season, has nothing much riding on the game and decides to field a weakened team to which it loses, relegating Club B.
This could have been the case in Liverpool/Fulham situation.
If its vitally important to the integrity of the league that clubs cannot play inelligible players, surely it is just as vital that they play their strongest elligible ones?
There is going to be a large amount of interpretation required. Its just like in law. There will be clear examples of fielding strongest sides, clear examples (like Wolves) of fielding weak sides. and a large grey area in the middle. However its clear to me that McCarthy broke the rules. If they have a tribunal set up to hear his case and any mitigation then so be it but he absolutely broke the rules and Wolves should be docked points for having done it. The fact that Liverpool and others did it and it went unpunished is not relevant - two wrongs don't make a right. They cannot/will not be punished retrospectively but Wolves should be sanctioned for what they did.
I agree with you in principle Bing.
However it would be wrong to single Wolves out at this moment in time when, as has been pointed out, previous precedents have gone unpunished.
The answer in my view is for all Premiership Clubs to be circulated in writing during the close season and told that judged abuse of this rule will result in points being forfeited irrespective of which club transgresses.
That way a line has been clearly drawn and clubs should know exactly where they stand from hereon in.
Totally agree with these two points and they sum it up perfectly. Rules need to be consistent and other clubs have gone unpunished, therefore like Len says a new rule, like the JPT point I raised should be introduced throughout the Premier and Football League.
There are rules they should be enforced, the thread I thought was primarily about Wolves and whether they should have rules enforced on them and be sanctioned and that was what I was addressing.
Should all rules be enforced fairly and universally? - Absolutely they should and Liverpool should have been cited and punished for what they did. All I was saying was that because one club got away with it in the past should not be a reason for doing nothing now as some seem to be suggesting.
Let them make an example of Wolves/McCarthy, set a clear precedent for enforcing the rules and apply those rules universally in future to so called "big" clubs" and "small" clubs alike.
1. It has caught everyone off guard as people only expect the big teams to rest players.
2. McCarthy has highlighted the absurdity of the Premier league in that it is no longer one league but two or three small leagues within a league. The money has created a situation in which a club like Wolves know that they cannot compete. They know that their mission is survival. The real games are against the other bottom eight teams. Win them at home and draw away and you already have 30-odd points.
The real truth goes even further than that. Look at West Brom. They go up, grab the money only to go back down to use the money to get back up. That's the reality these days. You have to play that game before even think of establishing yourself in the league. As for getting in the top 6 or even winning it - there's no chance. Clough with his Nottingham Forest of the seventies would even have had to recognise this. It shows what a complete farce the whole thing is.
McCarthy is simply demonstrating what most people know but can't bear to admit. If you want to change it don't blame McCarthy but look for a greater share of profits.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]in my view the league is finished as a credible entity .
That sums up what I'm saying. Does anyone truly think that it is still credible?
It's not been credible for years now. Its worse than the SPL, that's why it was actually good to see Chelsea 'buy' the league, and it'll be brilliant when Man City do it too. I genuinely believe this is the best chance in a long time that any side has had to break the monopoly of the top 4. Come On Man City/Villa/Spurs!
Comments
Since when can the premier league pick your squad for you?
It can not, it can not see what happens in training and it can not tell a manger that he can not drop players because he wants to.
The Premier league have placed a rule in their book that can not be enforced so no rule has been broken the 11 players he picked to play last night got beat 3 nil the team that Wigan picked to play spuds got beat by how many 8 or 9 wasnt it,
one team played its first 11 one never you pick what one
Rest players...yes of course but 10 !!!!!!!!!!!!
spot on
Within the rules ? I suspect Mick will be fined for breaking them.
i think it is atleast 7 players last night had played in the prem and i am sure most of them were paid for.
how many played in this years wolves fa youth cup team
His strongest team.....He can`t argue that can he.
MM " in traning there was a tear up between the midfield and defence, so i dropped 8 of them for the biggest game of the season as punishment and 2 were carrying knocks"
Prem " ok then Mick who are we to tell you how to manage"
MM " right i am fooking off now then "
thats it in a nut shell he can say what he likes there is no one who can say that he didnt pick his strongest 11
Right.
I thought players, managers and, incredibly as we've occasionally seen, referees ........... have enough trouble interpreting the actual laws of the game, let alone bureaucratic meanderings like, "Premier League Rule number 20"
Evidently it exists, as I'm reminded. But how many professionals in the game are actually familiar with it, and as others have pointed out, how is it enforceable.....? In any case, most Premier League clubs have squads of between 30 and 40 players, all of whom must be deemed as capable of playing to the standard required. It can only be a manager's decision as to which of those 30+ players are selected.
Anybody and everybody who has actually played the game competitively understands that your 11 most talented players rarely make the best team ..... so it's always going to be no more than a personal or even collective opinion as to what constitutes a best team.
But, an opinion isn't a fact....... and thus unenforcable.
I see your point, but couldn't it be argued (as a case against him), that the team which he regularly plays (ie. the players who play most games, most of the time) is a suitable measure of his 'strongest side'. I'm sure the Premier League would define the term 'strongest side' in relation to the managers opinion, nobody elses. You can measure this by looking at the side he normally picks.
I think it's therefore totaly enforcable. Obviously it wouldn't happen, but if the Prem chose to take MM to court over this, I'm sure with this argument they would have a very strong case.
It's a stupid rule, but it is a rule. And to some extent, one that he can be shown to have broken.
It is a stupid rule, but it's not part of the laws of the game.
It is an in-house rule, and purely subjective in how it's interpreted - and if in this instance is deemed punishable by a Prem 'Kangaroo Court' committee, it would certainly open the proverbial can of worms on past precedents which have been allowed to go unpunished.
Also, how do you define the point where it's mooted that a weakened team has been played? Again just a matter of opinion.
Agree with all of that. I cannot see them doing anything about it. If they do, they lend credence to an obviously stupid rule, which creates a precedent they will spend lots of (wasted) time and money trying to enforce. And as you say, there have been lots of cases with the big 4 in the past that have gone unpunished, and they the Prem would then have the tricky task of explaining and defending that!
Imagine, the Premier League release a statement saying that in light of recent events, the rules have been reviewed and rule no. 20 will be removed because it is an unenforcable law. This is the most sensible thing that could come out of this whole event, but the least likely. Most likely is they ask him to explain himself, he will, and it will be brushed under the carpet, or it is totally ignored from the off.
On the other hand there's been some upsets this year (Wolves at Spurs, Man U at Burnley), so it could be argued that he has a duty towards the rivals of the team that he's throwing in the towel against. As has been said if - say - Hull were playing Chelsea near the end of the season and Chelsea had the league sewn up and threw out a weak team that Hull beat and got enough points to send Wolves down, he'd not have any right to moan.
Maybe they should limit the number of changes a manager's allowed to make?
I'm not condoning what McCarthy did but I certainly don't recall our Jolly Scouse chums getting a battering for it, so until there is a rule change (and not just for the Premier League either) this will go on and on.
Johnstone’s Paint Trophy Rules:
7.3 Each Club shall play its full available strength in all matches. The Board will from time to time
issue a policy as to what constitutes ‘full available strength’. Any Club failing to meet this
requirement will be required to pay a fine of up to £5,000.
It's still quite a loose definition but it seems to work better than the Premier League's own rules. Obviously £5,000 is nothing but I'm sure the punishment/fine could be changed.
As far as I'm concerned a manager can put out whichever 11 he wants, the gulf between the two 11s he put out this week isn't very big. Far bigger is the league endorsed and created gulf between top and bottom.
Was just about to say the same re Liverpool and Fulham and then saw your post!
If we say that nothing can be done about it, we are accepting that for example, "behind closed doors" deals may be arranged to advantage some teams and disadvantage others.
Supposing Club A has a major rival Club B in the same city? A is looking to grow support and be top dog in the area. Club B is struggling to avoid relegation and needs its rivals to lose games. Club A is playing a relegation threatened team on the last day of the season, has nothing much riding on the game and decides to field a weakened team to which it loses, relegating Club B.
This could have been the case in Liverpool/Fulham situation.
If its vitally important to the integrity of the league that clubs cannot play inelligible players, surely it is just as vital that they play their strongest elligible ones?
There is going to be a large amount of interpretation required. Its just like in law. There will be clear examples of fielding strongest sides, clear examples (like Wolves) of fielding weak sides. and a large grey area in the middle. However its clear to me that McCarthy broke the rules. If they have a tribunal set up to hear his case and any mitigation then so be it but he absolutely broke the rules and Wolves should be docked points for having done it. The fact that Liverpool and others did it and it went unpunished is not relevant - two wrongs don't make a right. They cannot/will not be punished retrospectively but Wolves should be sanctioned for what they did.
I agree with you in principle Bing.
However it would be wrong to single Wolves out at this moment in time when, as has been pointed out, previous precedents have gone unpunished.
The answer in my view is for all Premiership Clubs to be circulated in writing during the close season and told that judged abuse of this rule will result in points being forfeited irrespective of which club transgresses.
That way a line has been clearly drawn and clubs should know exactly where they stand from hereon in.
Totally agree with these two points and they sum it up perfectly. Rules need to be consistent and other clubs have gone unpunished, therefore like Len says a new rule, like the JPT point I raised should be introduced throughout the Premier and Football League.
There are rules they should be enforced, the thread I thought was primarily about Wolves and whether they should have rules enforced on them and be sanctioned and that was what I was addressing.
Should all rules be enforced fairly and universally? - Absolutely they should and Liverpool should have been cited and punished for what they did. All I was saying was that because one club got away with it in the past should not be a reason for doing nothing now as some seem to be suggesting.
Let them make an example of Wolves/McCarthy, set a clear precedent for enforcing the rules and apply those rules universally in future to so called "big" clubs" and "small" clubs alike.
1. It has caught everyone off guard as people only expect the big teams to rest players.
2. McCarthy has highlighted the absurdity of the Premier league in that it is no longer one league but two or three small leagues within a league. The money has created a situation in which a club like Wolves know that they cannot compete. They know that their mission is survival. The real games are against the other bottom eight teams. Win them at home and draw away and you already have 30-odd points.
The real truth goes even further than that. Look at West Brom. They go up, grab the money only to go back down to use the money to get back up. That's the reality these days. You have to play that game before even think of establishing yourself in the league. As for getting in the top 6 or even winning it - there's no chance. Clough with his Nottingham Forest of the seventies would even have had to recognise this. It shows what a complete farce the whole thing is.
McCarthy is simply demonstrating what most people know but can't bear to admit. If you want to change it don't blame McCarthy but look for a greater share of profits.
That sums up what I'm saying. Does anyone truly think that it is still credible?
It's not been credible for years now. Its worse than the SPL, that's why it was actually good to see Chelsea 'buy' the league, and it'll be brilliant when Man City do it too. I genuinely believe this is the best chance in a long time that any side has had to break the monopoly of the top 4. Come On Man City/Villa/Spurs!