EXCLUSIVE: Weakened teams will be allowed after clubs vote..

to change rule.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2014903/Premier-League-sides-weakened.html?

Thank fuck for that. Shite rule in the first place, the manager should be able to pick who he wants out of his squad of 25 players.

Disgusting decision.

Ian Holloway must be pissed after he got punished for this.

great.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

Ben wrote:This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

It also means relegation candidates have a MUCH higher chance of surviving. Which is good for everyone.

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

It is crucial to the integrity of the Premier League that each team faces each other team with as close to a full strength line-up as possible.

Imagine there is a title race between Manchester United and Manchester City next season, and Aston Villa are fighting Liverpool for 6th position. Aston Villa head to Old Trafford knowing that they play Liverpool in 3 days time and that they'll probably lose anyway, so they put out a youth side and get hammered 5-0. They go on to beat Liverpool, and then play Manchester City a week later with a full strength side because they have no upcoming crucial matches, and snatch a draw. If that scenario were to occur, Manchester United would have gained an unfair advantage in the title race, and I cannot abide that.

Can you?

Laurencio wrote:

Ben wrote:This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

It also means relegation candidates have a MUCH higher chance of surviving. Which is good for everyone.

How is that even possible?

Good.

Laurencio wrote:

Ben wrote:This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

It also means relegation candidates have a MUCH higher chance of surviving. Which is good for everyone.

no it doesnt idiot

Brad calling Laurencio an idiot.

Good. It's a joke that you could be fined for using players named in your 25 man squad.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Ben wrote:This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

It also means relegation candidates have a MUCH higher chance of surviving. Which is good for everyone.

How is that even possible?

They save their best players from matches they simply can't win, which means they'll have them fresh when it "matters". Instead of exhausting their best players in a fight against ManUtd, Arsenal (especially), Chelsea and City they can play a "weaker" side in order to increase their chances in beating the "lesser" sides.

It also means that a "lesser" side can risk facing a significantly "weaker" top side in the latter part of the season, improving their chances drastically.. Although I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the "gentleman's code" of managers will prevent that from happening.

Note, by Relegation candidates I mean newly promoted sides who are basically considered "doomed". Not that more teams will survive. Given that they have a cynical manager.

Laurencio wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Ben wrote:This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

It also means relegation candidates have a MUCH higher chance of surviving. Which is good for everyone.

How is that even possible?

They save their best players from matches they simply can't win, which means they'll have them fresh when it "matters". Instead of exhausting their best players in a fight against ManUtd, Arsenal (especially), Chelsea and City they can play a "weaker" side in order to increase their chances in beating the "lesser" sides.

It also means that a "lesser" side can risk facing a significantly "weaker" top side in the latter part of the season, improving their chances drastically.. Although I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the "gentleman's code" of managers will prevent that from happening.

Note, by Relegation candidates I mean newly promoted sides who are basically considered "doomed". Not that more teams will survive. Given that they have a cynical manager.

They're wiping their arse with the gentleman's code if they go through with this. If all the relegation candidates rest their top players in games that are seen as unwinnable, they'll all have the same chances of staying up because they'll all be on an equal footing, the only difference will be that the Champions finish with about 100 points.

Laurencio wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Ben wrote:This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

It also means relegation candidates have a MUCH higher chance of surviving. Which is good for everyone.

How is that even possible?

They save their best players from matches they simply can't win, which means they'll have them fresh when it "matters". Instead of exhausting their best players in a fight against ManUtd, Arsenal (especially), Chelsea and City they can play a "weaker" side in order to increase their chances in beating the "lesser" sides.

It also means that a "lesser" side can risk facing a significantly "weaker" top side in the latter part of the season, improving their chances drastically.. Although I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the "gentleman's code" of managers will prevent that from happening.

Note, by Relegation candidates I mean newly promoted sides who are basically considered "doomed". Not that more teams will survive. Given that they have a cynical manager.

all relegation candidates can use the rule and 3 of them will still go down, i know what you're saying but it doesnt alter the probability

Danny wrote:Good. It's a joke that you could be fined for using players named in your 25 man squad.

This, The old rule was just stupid.

XxBradKennedyxX wrote:
They're wiping their arse with the gentleman's code if they go through with this. If all the relegation candidates rest their top players in games that are seen as unwinnable, they'll all have the same chances of staying up because they'll all be on an equal footing, the only difference will be that the Champions finish with about 100 points.

Champions will probably finish with a lot more points, true. But some mediocre sides might find themselves beat by a newly promoted team once in a while. The "freshness" of players in these "winnable" matches could make quite the difference at the end of the season.

You should use whichever players you have chosen in your 25 man squad. You shouldn't be fined for that, stupid rule.

I'd be different if you shown up with like 6 youth players on the field or something though.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

It is crucial to the integrity of the Premier League that each team faces each other team with as close to a full strength line-up as possible.

Imagine there is a title race between Manchester United and Manchester City next season, and Aston Villa are fighting Liverpool for 6th position. Aston Villa head to Old Trafford knowing that they play Liverpool in 3 days time and that they'll probably lose anyway, so they put out a youth side and get hammered 5-0. They go on to beat Liverpool, and then play Manchester City a week later with a full strength side because they have no upcoming crucial matches, and snatch a draw. If that scenario were to occur, Manchester United would have gained an unfair advantage in the title race, and I cannot abide that.

Can you?

Also this is beyond stupid.

You might as well fine teams for being off form against certain opposition, and for playing well against others.

This sounds like a good move and will make the manager's job much more important. If you are running one of these teams you should be allowed to run your team how you want and try whatever strategy you wish. It will be quite interesting to see this new dynamic in effect since the various managers will be able to set priorities now. It will be interesting to see if any managers really try to focus on the FA Cup rather than the league.

finally the 25 man squad makes sense

i dont think there will be many occasions where teams change 11 players...

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

It is crucial to the integrity of the Premier League that each team faces each other team with as close to a full strength line-up as possible.

Imagine there is a title race between Manchester United and Manchester City next season, and Aston Villa are fighting Liverpool for 6th position. Aston Villa head to Old Trafford knowing that they play Liverpool in 3 days time and that they'll probably lose anyway, so they put out a youth side and get hammered 5-0. They go on to beat Liverpool, and then play Manchester City a week later with a full strength side because they have no upcoming crucial matches, and snatch a draw. If that scenario were to occur, Manchester United would have gained an unfair advantage in the title race, and I cannot abide that.

Can you?

I know completely what you are saying, but to me that's just how the league tables work regardless. You fight for what you can get. Personally I'm glad that the lower clubs have a bit more of a chance now in certain situations. The old rule was bollocks.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

It is crucial to the integrity of the Premier League that each team faces each other team with as close to a full strength line-up as possible.

Imagine there is a title race between Manchester United and Manchester City next season, and Aston Villa are fighting Liverpool for 6th position. Aston Villa head to Old Trafford knowing that they play Liverpool in 3 days time and that they'll probably lose anyway, so they put out a youth side and get hammered 5-0. They go on to beat Liverpool, and then play Manchester City a week later with a full strength side because they have no upcoming crucial matches, and snatch a draw. If that scenario were to occur, Manchester United would have gained an unfair advantage in the title race, and I cannot abide that.

Can you?

Don't know if you read the article, but it says that using too many of the under 21s (who don't need to be registered) is still against the rules.

Laurencio wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Ben wrote:This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

It also means relegation candidates have a MUCH higher chance of surviving. Which is good for everyone.

How is that even possible?

They save their best players from matches they simply can't win, which means they'll have them fresh when it "matters". Instead of exhausting their best players in a fight against ManUtd, Arsenal (especially), Chelsea and City they can play a "weaker" side in order to increase their chances in beating the "lesser" sides.

It also means that a "lesser" side can risk facing a significantly "weaker" top side in the latter part of the season, improving their chances drastically.. Although I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the "gentleman's code" of managers will prevent that from happening.

Note, by Relegation candidates I mean newly promoted sides who are basically considered "doomed". Not that more teams will survive. Given that they have a cynical manager.

Why "Arsenal (especially)" ???
We dropped I think 9 points to newly promoted teams last season lol.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

It is crucial to the integrity of the Premier League that each team faces each other team with as close to a full strength line-up as possible.

Imagine there is a title race between Manchester United and Manchester City next season, and Aston Villa are fighting Liverpool for 6th position. Aston Villa head to Old Trafford knowing that they play Liverpool in 3 days time and that they'll probably lose anyway, so they put out a youth side and get hammered 5-0. They go on to beat Liverpool, and then play Manchester City a week later with a full strength side because they have no upcoming crucial matches, and snatch a draw. If that scenario were to occur, Manchester United would have gained an unfair advantage in the title race, and I cannot abide that.

Can you?

It's too subjective though. What if a few regular starters genuinely need a rest? What if it is genuinely in their best long term interests to take a game off but then the league, in their own subjective and not-fully-informed view, decides to levy a fine? There's no perfect way to police this. You have a 25-man rule. You still aren't allowed to use too many under-21s. That's the best we're going to be able to do. There's no way to make this perfect. What's the point of having a 25-man rule if you're not allowed to pick whomever you want from those 25?

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

It is crucial to the integrity of the Premier League that each team faces each other team with as close to a full strength line-up as possible.

Imagine there is a title race between Manchester United and Manchester City next season, and Aston Villa are fighting Liverpool for 6th position. Aston Villa head to Old Trafford knowing that they play Liverpool in 3 days time and that they'll probably lose anyway, so they put out a youth side and get hammered 5-0. They go on to beat Liverpool, and then play Manchester City a week later with a full strength side because they have no upcoming crucial matches, and snatch a draw. If that scenario were to occur, Manchester United would have gained an unfair advantage in the title race, and I cannot abide that.

Can you?

Don't know if you read the article, but it says that using too many of the under 21s (who don't need to be registered) is still against the rules.

Alright, fine they put out all their worst players who are never in their first 11 along with 3 or 4 U-21 players. Please stop avoiding answering the scenario.

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

It is crucial to the integrity of the Premier League that each team faces each other team with as close to a full strength line-up as possible.

Imagine there is a title race between Manchester United and Manchester City next season, and Aston Villa are fighting Liverpool for 6th position. Aston Villa head to Old Trafford knowing that they play Liverpool in 3 days time and that they'll probably lose anyway, so they put out a youth side and get hammered 5-0. They go on to beat Liverpool, and then play Manchester City a week later with a full strength side because they have no upcoming crucial matches, and snatch a draw. If that scenario were to occur, Manchester United would have gained an unfair advantage in the title race, and I cannot abide that.

Can you?

It's too subjective though. What if a few regular starters genuinely need a rest? What if it is genuinely in their best long term interests to take a game off but then the league, in their own subjective and not-fully-informed view, decides to levy a fine? There's no perfect way to police this. You have a 25-man rule. You still aren't allowed to use too many under-21s. That's the best we're going to be able to do. There's no way to make this perfect. What's the point of having a 25-man rule if you're not allowed to pick whomever you want from those 25?

I agree, there's no perfect way to police it, so you only punish teams when they are being blatantly being disrespectful to the integrity of the League, eg. making 10 or 11 changes. At the very least managers should be asked by the FA to explain their selections if they are blatantly weaker than usual, if they can convince an FA panel that that was the strongest team they could have fielded then they should not be fined.

The 25 man squad rule has nothing to do with this, the point of that is to reduce pressure on wages.

I agree with RR... Although I don't think sitting in front of a panel and explaining a decision would do any good. They'd just say I rested Rooney because he has played 90% of games this season, I rested Ferdinand because he has played 90% of games this season etc.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Disgusting decision.

How come?

It is crucial to the integrity of the Premier League that each team faces each other team with as close to a full strength line-up as possible.

Imagine there is a title race between Manchester United and Manchester City next season, and Aston Villa are fighting Liverpool for 6th position. Aston Villa head to Old Trafford knowing that they play Liverpool in 3 days time and that they'll probably lose anyway, so they put out a youth side and get hammered 5-0. They go on to beat Liverpool, and then play Manchester City a week later with a full strength side because they have no upcoming crucial matches, and snatch a draw. If that scenario were to occur, Manchester United would have gained an unfair advantage in the title race, and I cannot abide that.

Can you?

Don't know if you read the article, but it says that using too many of the under 21s (who don't need to be registered) is still against the rules.

Alright, fine they put out all their worst players who are never in their first 11 along with 3 or 4 U-21 players. Please stop avoiding answering the scenario.

Wasn't avoiding, I don't really have any strong feelings either way. In that scenario United have gained an unfair advantage, yes. The u21 thing keeps it within reason though.

grenade187 wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Ben wrote:This just means loads of teams will be given unfair advantages now.

It also means relegation candidates have a MUCH higher chance of surviving. Which is good for everyone.

How is that even possible?

They save their best players from matches they simply can't win, which means they'll have them fresh when it "matters". Instead of exhausting their best players in a fight against ManUtd, Arsenal (especially), Chelsea and City they can play a "weaker" side in order to increase their chances in beating the "lesser" sides.

It also means that a "lesser" side can risk facing a significantly "weaker" top side in the latter part of the season, improving their chances drastically.. Although I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the "gentleman's code" of managers will prevent that from happening.

Note, by Relegation candidates I mean newly promoted sides who are basically considered "doomed". Not that more teams will survive. Given that they have a cynical manager.

Why "Arsenal (especially)" ???
We dropped I think 9 points to newly promoted teams last season lol.

Because our style of play forces the opposition (especially weaker teams) to run more than usual since we keep majority possession and play neat, quick passes. Lower teams often get worn out faster against us was the point Laurencio was trying to make.