Looking at yesterday team, did Wednesday field too many loan players? I thought the number was restricted to 5, yesterdays team sheet had 6!!

Similar thing happened to Leeds

link here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/6164745.stm)

Leeds got a fine, but didnt get any points from the game, the owls got a point yesterday - will they get a deduction?

yep, looks like we've broken the rules, now we've just got to wait and see what happens now

Maybe you could organise a march on parliament again in the fight for justice in football.Maybe even Sean Bean could join in.

Check the actuall ruling and how the owls have got in the players.There has been no rules broken.:)

Check the actuall ruling and how the owls have got in the players.There has been no rules broken.:)

So how have they not broke any rules then? :huh:

So how have they not broke any rules then? :huh:If you check the ruling you will find that bringing the players on as subs does not break any ruling.:)

If you check the ruling you will find that bringing the players on as subs does not break any ruling.:)

That may be true but they did name 6 loan players in the 16 man team which is not allowed.

That may be true but they did name 6 loan players in the 16 man team which is not allowed.The amout of squad numbers is irrelevant to be honest as regards the rules.You can in theory use unlimited subs on loan apparently.Check the clubs site out its explained in full on there .:)

The amout of squad numbers is irrelevant to be honest as regards the rules.You can in theory use unlimited subs on loan apparently.Check the clubs site out its explained in full on there .:)

I've had a look but can't find it. Could you provide a link please?

The amout of squad numbers is irrelevant to be honest as regards the rules.You can in theory use unlimited subs on loan apparently.Check the clubs site out its explained in full on there .:)

According to BBC..


Football League rules stipulate that only five on-loan players are allowed to feature on the match-day team sheet.

Just checked regards the Leeds United situation too, which blows your theory out the water.

Horsfield and Kandol came on as subs, and only 3 players started: Ehiogu, Stack, Heath,

A 6th player in Warner was on the bench too like Horsfield and Kandol and never played.

So yes, IF the rules remain the same as last season, the Owls have broken the rules.

The amout of squad numbers is irrelevant to be honest as regards the rules.You can in theory use unlimited subs on loan apparently.Check the clubs site out its explained in full on there .:)

Absolute rubbish:D

Bizarrely, I can't find the Football League official rules on the Football League official website.

However, such pages as I can find mention that this rule change was introduced in 2002, and stipulated:

(a) maximum number of loans allowed in a season increased from five to ten;
(b) maximum number of loan players in the match-day squad increased from three to five.

source (http://www.bcfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10327~225466,00.html)
Anybody find anything more up-to-date than this?

It'd be a tragedy if the Owls were to lose that point, but if the rule has been broken, the League will almost certainly nullify the game, and very likely award Stoke a 3-0 victory.

This website http://www.btinternet.com/~rfc1871/news/features/loans.htm

Shows: A club is able to name a maximum of five loan players (short-term and long-term combined) in the 16 players listed on the team sheet for a game.

That may be true but they did name 6 loan players in the 16 man team which is not allowed.

Is it 6 players at any one time on the playing field though? Been trying to find this on the FA rules website but it is taking too long!

I have read somewhere before if this is the case points are deducted, that is all we need right now.

Nothing on the web site/quote from Laws etc. Nothing on Stoke's website as well, I am sure it is 6 on the playing field at any one time, however don't quote me on that as I have still to find the answer on the FA rules site.

Fingers Crossed

Is it 6 players at any one time on the playing field though? Been trying to find this on the FA rules website but it is taking too long!

When Leeds got fined for this, it wasn't men on pitch. It was 6 in the 16 man squad.

This website http://www.btinternet.com/~rfc1871/news/features/loans.htm

Shows: A club is able to name a maximum of five loan players (short-term and long-term combined) in the 16 players listed on the team sheet for a game.

Interesting, just read that after writing war and peace, but that applies for 2003-2004 doesn't it?

Have there been any changes?

We'll have to wait and see!

When Leeds got fined for this, it wasn't men on pitch. It was 6 in the 16 man squad.

What happened to Leeds then?

What happened to Leeds then?

£1,000 fine, with £1,000 suspended fine. However they lost their game 2-1.

When Leeds got fined for this, it wasn't men on pitch. It was 6 in the 16 man squad.

Sorry to prolong this but has Kav been released by Sunderland now? Free agent?

It seems mad if we have broken the rules, surely someone at the club would be aware of this considering the number of players on loan we have?

Sorry to prolong this but has Kav been released by Sunderland now? Free agent?

It seems mad if we have broken the rules, surely someone at the club would be aware of this considering the number of players on loan we have?

Soccerbase have him down as a loan player http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=4066 and they're generally reliable.

Sorry to prolong this but has Kav been released by Sunderland now? Free agent?

It seems mad if we have broken the rules, surely someone at the club would be aware of this considering the number of players on loan we have?

My mistake just been on web page and Kav is on loan, so not sure now, be a right kick in the teeth if we got bummed and were made to forfeit the game!

My mistake just been on web page and Kav is on loan, so not sure now, be a right kick in the teeth if we got bummed and were made to forfeit the game!

It should be someone at the club that receives the kick in the teeth if we get docked points.

What a stupid mistake if this is true.

My mistake just been on web page and Kav is on loan, so not sure now, be a right kick in the teeth if we got bummed and were made to forfeit the game!

Think the harshest thing to happen would be a point deduction.

But they set a precendence with scummy Leeds last year in just a fine, so I'd argue to the hilt if a point deduction was given if I were owls chairman.

Think the harshest thing to happen would be a point deduction.

But they set a precendence with scummy Leeds last year in just a fine, so I'd argue to the hilt if a point deduction was given if I were owls chairman.

Aye, if all this happens we ought to take a leaf out of the Blades book for not letting go of an argument ;) :P

At the end of the day, non of us know what punishment will be dished out.

Leeds actually played 5 loan players, but they notified the league themselves stating their mistake, so it's hard to compare the two cases.

We just need to concentrate on winning our next two matches, then hopefully it won't matter if we lose the point we gained yesterday

Aye, if all this happens we ought to take a leaf out of the Blades book for not letting go of an argument ;) :P

Difference is, the Blades didn't break any rules ;)

Wednesday won't be docked points for such a small infringment... And as to how the club made this mistake? It won't have been a mistake, it's just that they would rather pay a fine than lose a match.

From The Sunday Times March 30, 2008

Sloppy Stoke fall from grace
Sheffield Wed 1 Stoke 1 Alan Combes at Hillsborough

"THE GAME itself may well prove to be subordinate to Sheffield Wednesday’s tricky position with regard to loan players. Within their squad, the Owls declared six loan signings - Graham Kavanagh, Ben Sahar, Frank Songo’o, Adam Bolder, Enoch Showunmi and Bartosz Slusarski. Only four of them played, but nevertheless, this is contrary to rules that state that only five loan players can be included in the squad."

kick the cheating pigs out of the league they had plenty of players for the reserves earlier in the week yee harr

Remember Wednesday secretary, Graham Mackrell who moved to West Ham but 'walked' from his post there after an error re-a player's illegal registration. Who is culpable for this error?

Wednesday won't be docked points for such a small infringment... And as to how the club made this mistake? It won't have been a mistake, it's just that they would rather pay a fine than lose a match.

If the FA believe it was done deliberately for that purpose, not only will they forfeit the point gained, they'll probably be docked a good few others.

Mere clerical errors can be dealt with by fines. Deliberate cheating tends to be stamped on.

There is nothing on sky sports news and nothing on the Wednesday website.

well if they have broken the rules, we'll just have to live with the punishment, be it points or fine. i cant believe they would be so stupid to have done it though with the amount of loans we have but it is wednesday i suppose. i heard they were allowed 6 loan signings in the squad and so many of them allowed to play but i dont know the rules on loan signings so i probably am wrong

There is nothing on sky sports news and nothing on the Wednesday website.

Give it time. Nothing will be reported until at the very earliest tomorrow.

Stoke won't take kindly to it don't worry, especially considering what they're aiming for.

Wednesday won't release a press release until it is brought up with the FA.

The Stoke Sentinel is aware of it : http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=158316&command=displayContent&sourceNode=158309&contentPK=20271060&folderPk=87603&pNodeId=158332

Yorkshire Post ; http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/football/BREAKING-Owls-could-face-points.3928834.jp

The FA will need to move quickly on this so as to avoid a "Tevez-type delay"!

Trouble a brewing, should expect Stoke will demand 3 points, but with a point deduction for the owls.

Trouble a brewing, should expect Stoke will demand 3 points, but with a point deduction for the owls.

Stoke won't much care if the Owls have points deducted, other than being awarded a victory from the game itself. It's not like Wednesday losing points makes Stoke any more likely to be promoted.

No doubt, if the Owls finish 4th bottom, the team in 3rd bottom will insist that justice requires the Owls to be docked the exact number of points that would see them relegated. :hihi:

I think the worst that's likely to happen is you'll forfeit the one point, and be deemed to have lost 3-0. (That seems to be the popular scoreline for forfeited matches, I know not why.) I can't see any further deductions, though a fine is very likely. They might even force a replay, and give you another chance to get the points.

Nothing is going to happen. It's a very minor issue and will result in a tiny fine if the FA bother to do anything at all. If it had been the 6th loan player who scored then Stoke might have something to complain about but since Wednesday only played four of the loan players (and one of those was a sub who replaced another loan player) there isn't any real issues. The FA aren't going to deduct points for having a illegal bench warmer.

Now stop your wishful thinking. ;)

Nothing is going to happen.

I shall bookmark this page for you

It's a very minor issue and will result in a tiny fine if the FA bother to do anything at all.

What is it with people and cheating? No matter how minor or major the issue is, Wednesday have cheated and need dealing with accordingly.

If it had been the 6th loan player who scored then Stoke might have something to complain about

Songo is on loan isn't he?

but since Wednesday only played four of the loan players (and one of those was a sub who replaced another loan player) there isn't any real issues.

Leeds hadn't played the full 6 players either, and they were still punished, albeit only £1,000.

The FA aren't going to deduct points for having a illegal bench warmer.

A point should be deducted and would be fair all round.

Precedent has been set with Leeds £2k fine - and the idiot responsible for picking 6 loan players in the squad (yes you, Mr Laws) should pay it out of his own pocket.

Stoke don't have a case in demanding 3 points - it's impossible and ludicrous to argue that having two unused substitutes who happened to be loan players could have had any bearing whatsoever on the result.

In fact, Stoke had players illegally on the pitch which did influence the result - 2 of their players should have seen red cards before halftime!

Precedent has been set with Leeds £2k fine
Yep, but Leeds didn't get any points from that game.

According to the Daily Mail:

Stoke are set to demand the Football League award them three points after it emerged Sheffield Wednesday broke the rules over loan players.

League rules insist that no more than five loan players can be in the 16 named on a teamsheet — but Wednesday included six.

Crucially, it was one of them, French winger Franck Songo'o, who scored the 81st minute equaliser that raised their hopes of escaping from the bottom three and toppled Stoke from top spot.

Full article here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=549762&in_page_id=1779)

Leeds got a fine but lost the match anyway by declaring the mistake as they had nothing to lose (i.e. not points to deduct).

Stoke will justifably make a complaint as they are in the promotion race and 3 points could be vital come the end of the season.

The person at Wednesday who made the mistake wants firing (you can't blame Laws, some administration error has been made).

It could blow up again at the end of the season if Wednesday stay up by the odd point.

I think a fine will probably be handed out, what is a grand to a billionaire Russian?

PS - when are the Russians coming?

Yep, but Leeds didn't get any points from that game.



Leeds also broke the rule which states that no more than four loan players must be on the pitch at any one time by using five at once, and still only got a £2k fine. Wednesday only had three on the pitch at any one time, and two were unused altogether.

How did Wednesday gain any advantage or affect the result in any way by having two loanee benchwarmers?

The fact that a loan player scored is irrelevant, as he was one of the three who started the game, he wasn't "the sixth loanee".

Stoke are clutching at straws if they really think they've got a case to be awarded all three points, and the pigs who are crying out for a point deduction are also deluded. You'll be demanding to be reinstated into the Premiership next. Oh, wait.

Yep, but Leeds didn't get any points from that game.

Irrelevant.

Stoke are set to demand the Football League award them three points after it emerged Sheffield Wednesday broke the rules over loan players.

Crucially, it was one of them, French winger Franck Songo'o, who scored the 81st minute equaliser that raised their hopes of escaping from the bottom three and toppled Stoke from top spot.

Basically Stoke are just trying their luck. Songo'o played from the start, there were never more than three loan players on the pitch at any time and two of them had no involvement in the game at all. Wednesday received no benefit from having broken the rule. They scored their goal fairly and Stoke are grasping at straws.

The FA aren't going to deduct points over this when they didn't over Tevez. If they did Wednesday would get them back on appeal because the deduction would be completely unjustifiable.

there were never more than three loan players on the pitch at any time and two of them had no involvement in the game at all. Wednesday received no benefit from having broken the rule.

I thought it was four Wednesday had on the pitch and 2 on the bench?

Wednesday had no benefit from breaking the rule, thats like saying i robbed a bank but didn't get any money and got caught, but i didn't actually make anything from it so was a crime committed?

Rules are rules my friend and if they are broken you face the consequences (though for what its worth i think Wednesday will get no more than a fine).


[/QUOTE]The FA aren't going to deduct points over this when they didn't over Tevez. If they did Wednesday would get them back on appeal because the deduction would be completely unjustifiable.[/QUOTE]

So you're admitting West Ham should have been deducted points?

Why would an appeal work, why would a points deduction be completely unjustified, if you're Stoke Chairman a points deduction would be totally justified, Wednesday have in effect broken the rules whichever way you look at it.

I think its a stprm in a teacup, yes wednmesday did break the rules but im sure they didn;t do it on purpose, stoke are just trying it on when there asking for all the 3 points.

The FA will fine wednesday 4 or 5 thousand pounds and give them a slap on the wrist.

kick the cheating pigs out of the league they had plenty of players for the reserves earlier in the week yee harr

You are a tool. That is sort of reply I expected from some half wit, here we are trying to discuss something and up pops spider bollx. I am suprised it has taken so long. There is always one

Anyway a decent blade, Robbie Lovin (Dogs), I have just been told that the Polish geezer we signed from WBA on the Thursday deadline was an emergency loan, you heard anything about that son?

Point deduction won't happen, if anything I reckon that we'll be fined.

I thought it was four Wednesday had on the pitch and 2 on the bench?

One loan player replaced another so there where only three on the pitch at any time and four played in total.

Rules are rules my friend and if they are broken you face the consequences (though for what its worth i think Wednesday will get no more than a fine).

I certainly expect Wednesday to get fined. I was just arguing that there was no reason that punishment should be any more severe than what Leeds received since while we might have broken the rule we didn't gain any advantage by doing so because we didn't even play two of the loan players.


So you're admitting West Ham should have been deducted points? Why would an appeal work, why would a points deduction be completely unjustified, if you're Stoke Chairman a points deduction would be totally justified, Wednesday have in effect broken the rules whichever way you look at it.

I mentioned Tevez because West Ham, who broke the rules and measurably benefited by playing an illegal player, didn't have any points deducted. That was a serious breach of the rules but it still didn't warrent a points deduction in the FAs opinion. Were Wednesday to receive one for what is nothing more than a minor technical breach then they'd have a very good case for getting it overturn because of the precedants already set.

Doomed I tell ye, we're doomed!!!

If the FA believe it was done deliberately for that purpose, not only will they forfeit the point gained, they'll probably be docked a good few others.

Mere clerical errors can be dealt with by fines. Deliberate cheating tends to be stamped on.

Like the Tevez thing was?

Here's what I found on the Football League web site after a bit of googling.
BUT I'm not sure if they are current.


47.3 There shall be two categories of temporary loan transfers allowed - Short Term Loans and Long Term Loans. The following restrictions shall apply to both types of loan:

47.3.1 A maximum of 5 loan Players (either Short Term or Long Term) can be named in the sixteen Players listed on a team sheet for any individual Match. This figure shall
include any additional loan of a goalkeeper approved by the Executive under the
provisions of Regulation 49.


http://www.football-league.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFiles/78/3/0,,10794~888,00.pdf

QUOTE:
I mentioned Tevez because West Ham, who broke the rules and measurably benefited by playing an illegal player, didn't have any points deducted. That was a serious breach of the rules but it still didn't warrent a points deduction in the FAs opinion. Were Wednesday to receive one for what is nothing more than a minor technical breach then they'd have a very good case for getting it overturn because of the precedants already set.[/QUOTE]

What you're forgetting is that it was the Premier League decision not to deduct points, not the FAs. Both appear to have different sets of rules when it comes to punishing a club.

News Just In:- The F.A have recieved a complaint from Stoke City regarding the possibility that Sheffield Wednesday featured 6 loan players in saturdays squad which is in breach of the games rules & Regulations as a maximum of 5 are allowed.
The F.A have acknowledged stokes request for a full investigation to be carried out, and Sheffield Wednesday now have 14 days to respond to the charge. Possible outcomes of the investigation are a significant fine and a possible point deduction as the game ended a 1-1 draw, meaning that the game could be insignificant to the owls, which again could be costly for the South Yorkshire club who find themselves battling to stay in the league this year. Stoke have also requested that they should be rewarded a win for saturdays game as a result of The Owls breach, however no response have been recieved from The F.A regarding this, and it is seen as highly unlikely that Stoke will recieve any compensation from the game.

News Just In:- The F.A have recieved a complaint from Stoke City regarding the possibility that Sheffield Wednesday featured 6 loan players in saturdays squad which is in breach of the games rules & Regulations as a maximum of 5 are allowed.
The F.A have acknowledged stokes request for a full investigation to be carried out, and Sheffield Wednesday now have 14 days to respond to the charge. Possible outcomes of the investigation are a significant fine and a possible point deduction as the game ended a 1-1 draw, meaning that the game could be insignificant to the owls, which again could be costly for the South Yorkshire club who find themselves battling to stay in the league this year. Stoke have also requested that they should be rewarded a win for saturdays game as a result of The Owls breach, however no response have been recieved from The F.A regarding this, and it is seen as highly unlikely that Stoke will recieve any compensation from the game.

Source? I'd like to read this for myself.

Quick check on the BBC news website and I've found this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sheff_wed/7322755.stm

"Sheffield Wednesday could face a fine from the Football League for naming too many loan players in their squad for Saturday's match against Stoke City.

League rules state that only five loan players are allowed on each team sheet, but the Owls included six.

Frank Songo, Graham Kavanagh, Ben Sahar and Enoch Showunmi all played, whilst Bartosz Slusarski and Adam Bolder were unused substitutes.

Leeds were fined £2,000 for naming six loan players at Burnley last season."

Source? I'd like to read this for myself.

Judging by the shockingly poor grammar, the source is probably himself.

Basically Stoke are just trying their luck. Songo'o played from the start, there were never more than three loan players on the pitch at any time and two of them had no involvement in the game at all.

You're not quite grasping the RULES are you?

It clearly states no more than FIVE loanees in the SQUAD. You had 6 in the squad. It is irrelevant how many featured in the game.

The FA aren't going to deduct points over this when they didn't over Tevez. If they did Wednesday would get them back on appeal because the deduction would be completely unjustifiable.

The FA and PL are 2 different entities and both issue very different punishments.

Just a point, if a Sunday League side has an illegible player in their squad they get a 3 points deduction regardless of the result..... Food for though maybe.

yes wednmesday did break the rules but im sure they didn;t do it on purpose,

They must surely have realised the different quotas available when they sign so many loan players.


Robbie Lovin I have just been told that the Polish geezer we signed from WBA on the Thursday deadline was an emergency loan, you heard anything about that son?

All loans after 31st of January are defined as "emergency" loans. This is because of the stupid ruling that FIFA introduced. So yes he is an "emergency" loan, but so are all players loaned after 31st of January.

The ruling refers to all loans, whether emergency or normal.

Point deduction won't happen, if anything I reckon that we'll be fined.

Agreed.

Talk about some persons having blinkers on.
If the rules were broken then some punishment is merited.
It would be interesting to see some of the comments if it had been Stoke who were in violation and the Owls were kicking up a fuss.
Or would that be different ? :gag:

Talk about some persons having blinkers on.
If the rules were broken then some punishment is merited.
It would be interesting to see some of the comments if it had been Stoke who were in violation and the Owls were kicking up a fuss.
Or would that be different ? :gag:

your right chuff we broke the rules and should take the punishment on the chin
stupid mistake made wednesday should hold there hands up

Talk about some persons having blinkers on.
If the rules were broken then some punishment is merited.
It would be interesting to see some of the comments if it had been Stoke who were in violation and the Owls were kicking up a fuss.
Or would that be different ? :gag:


No Wednesday fan will respond to this chuffinel; they're happier talking about Tevez and Warnock breaking the rules v WBA (when he was cleared of all charges yet ginger ex grunter was charged with misconduct).

Forget about the Wednesday match fixing etc, that doesn't count as cheating!!

No Wednesday fan will respond to this chuffinel; they're happier talking about Tevez and Warnock breaking the rules v WBA (when he was cleared of all charges yet ginger ex grunter was charged with misconduct).

Forget about the Wednesday match fixing etc, that doesn't count as cheating!!

see post 60 :P then remove chip from shoulder and take foot outta gob:thumbsup:

You are a tool. That is sort of reply I expected from some half wit, here we are trying to discuss something and up pops spider bollx. I am suprised it has taken so long. There is always one

Anyway a decent blade, Robbie Lovin (Dogs), I have just been told that the Polish geezer we signed from WBA on the Thursday deadline was an emergency loan, you heard anything about that son?

Point deduction won't happen, if anything I reckon that we'll be fined.

why am i a tool ,pigs cheated end of

Talk about some persons having blinkers on.
If the rules were broken then some punishment is merited.


I don't think you'll find a wednesday fan that will say that we don't deserve a fine.

What we want is to find out who in the club is responsible and what we certainly don't want is a points deduction, which we don't deserve.

Stoke are taking the michael if they think that they deserve all three points.

What we want is to find out who in the club is responsible and what we certainly don't want is a points deduction, which we don't deserve.

Starting to reek of desperation there img ;) And also sounding a little bit like West Ham last season :hihi::hihi:

I don't think you'll find a wednesday fan that will say that we don't deserve a fine.

What we want is to find out who in the club is responsible and what we certainly don't want is a points deduction, which we don't deserve.

Stoke are taking the michael if they think that they deserve all three points.


I think they do deserve all three points and you lot lose 1 as your goal was scored by one of the very loan players at the centre of the filthy, slimy, swill slurping low life cheating controversy of which you are now a part. :hihi:

I think they do deserve all three points and you lot lose 1 as your goal was scored by one of the very loan players at the centre of the filthy, slimy, swill slurping low life cheating controversy of which you are now a part. :hihi:

if they do get all 3 points then so be it


"filthy, slimy, swill slurping low life cheating controversy of which you are now a part" think this is a bit harsh but i think your saying it tongue in cheek or at least i hope you are :suspect:

if they do get all 3 points then so be it


"filthy, slimy, swill slurping low life cheating controversy of which you are now a part" think this is a bit harsh but i think your saying it tongue in cheek or at least i hope you are :suspect:

:help: :D :P

STOKE's chances of gaining any recompense for Sheffield Wednesday's breach of the loan rules on Saturday appeared to be fading this afternoon after a closer precedent came to light. Wednesday are under investigation by the Football League after naming six loan players in their 16 for Saturday's 1-1 draw with City.

The only previously highlighted precedent was Leeds being fined last season for naming six loanees in a game they lost anyway.

But now another example has come to light involving Swansea City in 2003 when they were caught naming six in their 16 for a game they, like Stoke, subsequently drew.



Crucially, perhaps, the League let them off with a reprimand after recognising the fact that only five of the six actually played in the game.

And only four of Wednesday's six hired hands actually got onto the field on Saturday.

Stoke are likely to argue that one of those four just happened to score Wednesday's late equaliser, while Stoke themselves were at a disadvantage from the kick-off because loan duo Paul Gallagher and Gabriel Zakuani were omitted in order to comply with League rules.

For now, however, Stoke are keeping their cards close to their chest regarding any reaction if the League's only action is to punish Sheffield.

A link for what Ally has posted http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/swansea_city/2903925.stm

If you want a spooky coincidence, the report on the BBC website is EXACTLY 5 years to the day ;)

But thats it, we are taking a case that is 5 years old.

A fine will be given, however I've thought about it more and perhaps a 1 point deduction would be fair to all in the league and Stoke not get any further points.

it states that swansea realised their mistake and reported themselves , which probably worked in their favour.

I don't think you'll find a wednesday fan that will say that we don't deserve a fine.

What we want is to find out who in the club is responsible and what we certainly don't want is a points deduction, which we don't deserve.

Stoke are taking the michael if they think that they deserve all three points.

Actually, after re-reading the posts, I stand corrected.
The League, FA or whoever boggles my mind with their complete lack of forethought regarding infringements and the punishment thereof.
Would it be too much to ask that, at least, guidelines be established for fitting the penalty to the "crime" and apply it evenhandedly ?
I asked the same question during the fiasco with WHU last season.
I also worked at an auto company and rule infringements were spelled out with the punishment specified.
For the record, I think that the Owls should be nailed more than Leeds were because Leeds 'fessed up and the Owls didn't.
I certainly don't think that the Owls should be deducted any points but should have to pay more than Leeds did, 3k pounds with 1k deferred, for instance.
In the grand scale of "cheating" it's pretty minor but it's cheating nevertheless and ignorance is no excuse.

They cheated and should be punished.
20 points deduction would be fair imo

:) :D

They cheated and should be punished.
20 points deduction would be fair imo

:) :D

yeh with your recent maths skills that should win us the league :D


if West Ham didn't have points deducted for playing an improperly registered player, what possible reason is there for deducting points for having 2 players off the field the entire game?!? ;) :D quote seth bennett from radio sheffield

They cheated and should be punished.
20 points deduction would be fair imo

:) :D

What a nice unbiased contribution to this thread you've made :rolleyes: :loopy:

yeh with your recent maths skills that should win us the league :D


if West Ham didn't have points deducted for playing an improperly registered player, what possible reason is there for deducting points for having 2 players off the field the entire game?!? ;) :D quote seth bennett from radio sheffield

Hows about a £5million fine you could easily affor.......... on second thoughts a point is far more realistic. :hihi:

Hows about a £5million fine you could easily affor.......... on second thoughts a point is far more realistic. :hihi:

1 point 10 points what can we do about it ? its out off our hands
mistake has been made so what will be will be

They cheated and should be punished.
20 points deduction would be fair imo

:) :D

StevieB2007.

-------------------------
Here to show himself up :)

For the record, I think that the Owls should be nailed more than Leeds were because Leeds 'fessed up and the Owls didn't.I certainly don't think that the Owls should be deducted any points but should have to pay more than Leeds did, 3k pounds with 1k deferred, for instance.
In the grand scale of "cheating" it's pretty minor but it's cheating nevertheless and ignorance is no excuse.

How do we know that the Owls didn't 'fess up'. Some eagle eyed caller first highlighted it on Praise or Grumble and the forums were pretty much full of it thereafter, followed by the press. It could be that the club reported it during or immediately after the match, we don't know. Or am I clutching at straws?

. Or am I clutching at straws?

Precisely ;)

1 point 10 points what can we do about it ? its out off our hands
mistake has been made so what will be will be

I know Mack, only joking mate. As ever keep :D

What difference does it make if anyone confesses the infringement ? Does that make it less of a 'crime' ? I think not.!
We have the usual suspects on both sides of the city getting all paranoid and high and mighty about a totally insignificant breach of rules. I can't even think why such a rule exists. Surely what really matters is the playing of loan players, not whether their names are written down on a piece of paper.
Still, its gives us all the opportunity to stick knives in each other !

I know Mack, only joking mate. As ever keep :D

:D i knew that fella :D

I'd like to know what the 2 loanees who sat on the bench throughout the game contributed.


I sat and watched the game and i'm not registered to play for the club.Surely the FA ought to investigate that as i must surely have influenced the game also.

It's just a cock up in admin.Stoke are desperate for the PREMIERSHIP money and will go to any lengths to achieve it.Something another club tried unsuccesfully.

What difference does it make if anyone confesses the infringement ? Does that make it less of a 'crime' ? I think not.!
We have the usual suspects on both sides of the city getting all paranoid and high and mighty about a totally insignificant breach of rules. I can't even think why such a rule exists. Surely what really matters is the playing of loan players, not whether their names are written down on a piece of paper.
Still, its gives us all the opportunity to stick knives in each other !

should a rule be in place where you cant have to many loanees
that way the mistake cannot be made
just a thought but is that too simple :huh:

I'd like to know what the 2 loanees who sat on the bench throughout the game contributed.

Another idiot who can't understand rules.

It's just a cock up in admin.Stoke are desperate for the PREMIERSHIP money and will go to any lengths to achieve it.Something another club tried unsuccesfully.

and who can blame em to be honest mate
what would you be saying if the role was reversed ?
its a cock up thats embarassing to the club and fans no getting away from it

yea, the mistake has been made, just got to accept whatever we get. no wednesday fan can complain, we would be saying the same as stoke if it was reversed. also, stoke had to leave out two players because of this rule, so why shouldnt they complain? i'm just hoping for a fine at worst or maybe lose the point

15 points i say 15 points.
Ridiculous i know but we can dream.

Another idiot who can't understand rules.

I never said it wasn't breaking the rules.Or am i missing something Robbie.

Maybe you ought to read it a bit first.

I never said it wasn't breaking the rules.Or am i missing something Robbie.

Maybe you ought to read it a bit first.

So why bring up the fact they did nothing on the bench.

did leeds get fined after they went into admin or b4:help:

did leeds get fined after they went into admin or b4:help:

Before admin.

StevieB2007.

-------------------------
Here to show himself up :)

F.Sidebottom

------------------

Why the fk is he here?

PROBABLY ONLY GET FINE

WHAT ROLE DOES EX WENDY CHAIR D.RICHARDS HAVE WITH LEAGUE:help:

Stoke have also requested that they should be rewarded a win for saturdays game as a result of The Owls breach

That's ripe coming from them. the same club who signed 2 players AFTER the deadline and went begging and pleading to the FA swearing to God that all the paperwork was done in time! .. and won! ... Bless 'em!
Yep, Kaven Walker or somebody mucked it up, we're going to Court, we'll be fined around 5K, Stoke'll get nowt, and the bacon striped piggies will be bleating like hell! There there.
The Premiership rules are different from the FA's rules, and it was the FA who fined L**ds last year. Dave Richards is with the Premier League (God knows how) and his opinion has no bearing on the outcome. Who'd want his opinion anyway? He sacked Ron Atkinson. NOT a very good decision maker!
We're Wednesday, we've climbed bigger mountains than this.
We'll take whatever is thrown at us, brush it to one side, thrash Cov and secure our place in this p hole of a division. Then we'll wait for the money to come rolling in, and charge towards the big boys league.
Stop bleating Wednesday lads, they'll think we're soft.

I for 1 think loans are wrong any way, A team should play reserve players if need be.
It would be the same for everyone,it would not be an advantage for anyone every club as a large squad of players,Not just saying this because of whats happened at Wednesday .Clubs are making last dich efforts to get promoted or stave off relegation by bringing in premiere league players when they have players already on there books that play in those positions

If you're not allowed to have more than 5 loanees in your matchday squad, then surely the simplest solution would be for the Football League to implement a rule saying that you're not allowed to have more than 5 players on loan to your club at any one time?

Have to laugh at some of the ridiculous comments from blades in this thread. Nobody's denying that SWFC made an error and broke the rules, but to call for point deductions and use the word cheats is just ridiculous. A small fine, just like Leeds got when they did the same but in a worse way (they played more loanees on the pitch than we did), and that's the end of it.

Stoke need to shut it as well. The result wasn't affected by us having 2 loan players sitting on the bench. They signed a player after the transfer window closed, but are we bleating about that? They were even blaming the referee arriving late last week for the fact that 2 of their players got injured! And perhaps if they hadn't deliberately crippled Jeffers earlier in the season we wouldn't have needed so many loan players in the first place...

why am i a tool ,pigs cheated end of

Coming out with untoward comments hence you being a tool, we know we have broken a league rule, but when you come out with stupid remarks like you did, it just angers people, like myself.

Have your say, post replies like you've done after your stupid comment made earlier in the thread!

Al Partridge didn't anger me!

"stave off relegation by bringing in premiere league players when they have players already on there books that play in those positions"

I agree with you swervin, a club should sink or swim with the organisation, management and reserve sources at their disposal. The championship is probably 60% full of players that don't really belong at that club. The FA are:loopy:


"would be for the Football League to implement a rule saying that you're not allowed to have more than 5 players on loan to your club at any one time?"

Al, I agree with your view on the present loan system, if we have to have one at all. The FA are:loopy:

Far be it for me to bring common sense into the equasion but what would be wrong with the following?

Manager hands selected squad list to ref prior to kick off.

All players have their playing status noted next to their names ie; Permanent, Loan, Emergency Loan.

Ref checks list for possible cock ups and signs it off if all looks fine.

After match ref sends list to the league who check it against their records.

The league comes down hard if the club has lied or the ref has not noticed any breach.

Sorted. :thumbsup:

Now that's far too easy Crookesey!

Far be it for me to bring common sense into the equasion but what would be wrong with the following?

...

Sorted. :thumbsup:
Since when have football administration and common sense gone hand in hand!

Coming out with untoward comments hence you being a tool, we know we have broken a league rule, but when you come out with stupid remarks like you did, it just angers people, like myself.

Have your say, post replies like you've done after your stupid comment made earlier in the thread!

well calling me a tool is not an untoward comment then, it angers me ,very mature of you , and if stoke did the same and you were in their position dont you think this board would be full of wendy bleating ,oh no not the massive swfc

and if stoke did the same and you were in their position dont you think this board would be full of wendy bleating ,oh no not the massive swfc

will you please stop taring us all with the same brush
:mad:








:D

So we broke a minor rule,so what.Cant believe people are making a fuss about it,we'll end up with £1000 fine and a slap on the hand,its not the end of the world.

So we broke a minor rule,so what.Cant believe people are making a fuss about it,we'll end up with £1000 fine and a slap on the hand,its not the end of the world.

"imagine" that B+W ;)

So we broke a minor rule,so what.Cant believe people are making a fuss about it,we'll end up with £1000 fine and a slap on the hand,its not the end of the world.


we know but the exact same would happen if the blades have done it so its just a bit of banter :D

Wednesday will just get a small fine for it.

Although at worst they may lose the point they gained from the match.

I've had enough of this Stoke Teves affair!
Can we move on?

Nobody's denying that SWFC made an error and broke the rules, but to call for point deductions and use the word cheats is just ridiculous.

Why contracdict yourself?


Cheat - a person (or team in your case) who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds.

You firmly state you broke the rules. Cheating is cheating.

perhaps if they hadn't deliberately crippled Jeffers earlier in the season we wouldn't have needed so many loan players in the first place...

Every team gets injuries, how is it Stokes fault you don't cover your own backs?

So we broke a minor rule,so what.

So what?

How is that fair on the other teams who abide by the rules?

Point deduction and a minor fine, that is the fairet punishment around.

yea, it would surely make sense to only allow a team 5 loan players but that would just be too simple. if we get a fine then fair enough, even losing the point we got i can take but it would be unfair to take anymore points off us

Just want to highlight one particular fact.
Is it possible that Wedneday didn't have more than 16 players capable of making a contribution to the match on Saturday?
We have come on the forum before HIGHLIGHTING the fact there might be dodgy goings on at s6, so who's to say it wasn't done on purpose with the intention that nobody noticed?
I for one dont think this myself, but you never know.
When people or football clubs are desperate they do desperate things.
We talk about dirty L--ds when they did the same, so like it was said earlier why aren't the registrations of players stated and then checked by the ref before the game?

i really cant see it. surely if that was the case they would of played all six, why risk it if they can just put an academy player on bench instead