- 28,410
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
2016/17 Premier League & General Football Discussion
- Thread starter Liquid
- 2,138 comments
- 64,379 views
- 28,528
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Fines should not be a fixed penalty and should be a ratio or percentage relative to the club's income. There's no possible threat or disincentive from a £35,000 fine for Manchester City.
£35 million? That might make them think twice. Maybe. Possibly but not.
£35 million? That might make them think twice. Maybe. Possibly but not.
- 15,620
- wrexham
- jameskent86451
- Jamobomb86
Arsene Wenger said in his press conference that he will make a decision on his future either next moth or April, also said he will be managing next season whether that would be at Arsenal or elsewhere.
No PL games this week as the FA cup is on.
No PL games this week as the FA cup is on.
- 84,401
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'm not a fan of means-tested penalties for the same crime - even more so when you're not able to detect the crime anonymously and when it's you who profits from the penalty. If big clubs get fined more for the same breaches, it's only an incentive to the authorities to detect the breaches in big clubs and ignore it in lower leagues because it's simply not profitable. There's already next to no drug-testing in League 1 and League 2 as it is!
The only fair answer is points deduction. Breach the code once, lose a point. Breach it twice and for any subsequent breaches, lose three points. That affects all clubs who fall foul of the code equally (and, as the Premier League has performance payouts based on finishing position, may cost a club like City millions).
It's amusing that Gary Neville is whining about the unfairness of it all, drawing a parallel between a club being fined for not ensuring its players' locations are up to date to allow testing and a player being banned for 8 months and missing the Euros for failing to take a drugs test by 'forgetting' and leaving Carrington without doing it*. Not exactly the same offence is it, Gary? The drugs testers and club knew exactly where Rio was, he just... 'forgot'*.
*Or, allegedly, jumped out of a changing room window and did a runner when the drugs testing guys showed up.
- 6,231
- Halifax, England
- christara321
Tut tut. Another admin error by the looks of it.
Lets see if poor old Bournemouth get slated for the same act?
I,ll start the ball rolling, £35 million, seems fair doesn,t it. (Sarcasm?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39009214
All I can say is poor little Fleetwood. £35 Million would probably cripple them?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38830628
Lets see if poor old Bournemouth get slated for the same act?
I,ll start the ball rolling, £35 million, seems fair doesn,t it. (Sarcasm?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39009214
All I can say is poor little Fleetwood. £35 Million would probably cripple them?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38830628
Last edited:
- 84,401
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Anyway.
Leyton Orient's captain Liam Kelly banned for 6 games for an actual push on a ball boy, which he denied!
Blackburn Rovers' striker Hope Akpan currently banned for 3 games for a really weak, accidental hands on a referee, which he got a red card for and which the FA might extend.
Leyton Orient's captain Liam Kelly banned for 6 games for an actual push on a ball boy, which he denied!
Blackburn Rovers' striker Hope Akpan currently banned for 3 games for a really weak, accidental hands on a referee, which he got a red card for and which the FA might extend.
- 28,528
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
You missed my point entirely.
Fining Manchester City £35 million doesn't mean Fleetwood would be fined the same amount. £35,000 is literally too small an amount for Manchester City to care about. If you are to fine clubs for such breaches of anti-doping rules, it would be better to fine clubs on a case by case basis.
However...
Being docked points no ifs, no buts would work fine. Fall foul of the rules? Tough titties, you lose league points.
- 28,528
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
- 36,522
- Scotland
- GTP_daan
- 28,528
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
- 84,401
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yeah, I discovered this yesterday by accident. I think that all of the other teams (I want to say Bala from Wales and Linfield from Northern Ireland... but I forget the third) got dunked out by Socttish Prem/Championship U20 teams in the first round, but Total Network Solutions are inexplicably in the semis.
They're on a bad run at the moment though. One defeat and one draw in their last three league games...
They're on a bad run at the moment though. One defeat and one draw in their last three league games...
- 6,231
- Halifax, England
- christara321
And thats what has been done? (On a case by case scenario?)
Thats why Man city got £35 thousand and Fleetwood got £4 thousand, Financially Bigger teams could be fined more but the point is thats what has been seen to be done by the anti doping agencies. I guess what am saying there is either like it or lump it. No offence.
Unfortunately for most people like yourself included think that £35 thousand is pittance, Probably myself too.
But thats the way it is, I think instead of writing in forums and complaining that Man city were fined too little then I suggest getting a pen and paper out and write to the anti doping agencies and complain.
Has for a points system to punish teams, My opinion on that is ludicrous.
The logistics for larger teams to keep the Anti doping agencies happy is to let them know not just about the whereabouts of Man city first team players but all there whereabouts at training and all of the academy players and all of the women's football teams whereabouts etc etc etc.
Including address,s and much much more, Plus its supposed to be updated daily of any changes?
So to punish one team, I.E Man city first team for what could be the anti doping agency not knowing the whereabouts of one individual is silly.
Yes its a logistical problem but it lies in the hands of the anti doping agency to make rules that are workable.
And if you would of read anything on the case of Man city LINK to daily mirror nice simple read regarding the reporter on the article whom points out some vital information like I,ve just pointed too above.
It all starts with a nasty slate of £35 million for Man City, Would they be saying that if it were there team in the headlines.
Slate the team for admin who are incapable, (Simple fix get better admin, Doesn't happen again in the future? Hopefully) Now AFC Bournemouth have been fetched into the fold I wonder how many more have gone under the radar, Never mind the fine to me it all comes down to the Anti doping agencies and not doing enough to get things to work better?And how many with this one sentence I have put in here, Thanks for the quote Famine.
That teams from lower leagues shall I say go under the radar for what Man City/AFC Bournemouth/Fleetwood have been punished for recently?
Last edited:
- 84,401
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Who said anything about punishing just the men's first team?
- 6,231
- Halifax, England
- christara321
I said it because thats what it basically means, I gave the example if one individual doesn,t report there whereabouts then the whole team is punished? I.E Man City.
In the context of what I wrote it is saying that if the anti doping agency see,s fit to punish the team has in this instance then it would throw the points deduction across the whole Man city outfit.
Just like Usain bolt and others had there gold medals taken away?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38744846
Punished for one individual not someone who didn,t tell the club or an admin error who didn,t know there whereabouts but some one who had taken a banned substance. (Still wrong to punish the innocent? Should be the guilty that get punished?)
Lets put the points system in this scenario, I.E Lets say Swansea or Palace or some other team sat one point above relegation.
Anti doping agency throws a spanner in there and gives out this ban thing, And drops then out of the league. Bad decision making I think. But thats my opinion.
Just like I also think its wrong to punish a whole club more than another club just because they have more penny's in there pocket. Stupid really. ( Said in a Clarkson voice.
)
Last edited:
- 84,401
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Why?
I mean, I wrote the original suggestion in this thread and at no point did I say that if the club can't find a WPL player or youth player the men's first team should be docked points. It makes more sense to punish the relevant team rather than arbitrarily sticking it on the first XI...
- 6,231
- Halifax, England
- christara321
Let me try and say this has simple as possible.
Man city got fined £35 grand, Thats the club. Who gets punish for the points. The club. No team was pin pointed as far as am aware.
I gave examples of the Man city, as a whole in the context of what I wrote. We are not picking out individuals for why Man city got fined.(Thats which teams unless you have the full report of the anti doping agency of the individuals who made the mistake?) (Which teams?)
It was Man city has a whole who got fined so it appears the club have to concede points across all teams. (For anti doping agency not knowing the whereabouts of individuals in the context I have tried to put across?)
I pointed out I.E Man city being punished as a team rather than individuals I.E per person. Punish the guilty for admin error or not knowing the whereabouts of a said player?
Just like I gave Usain Bolt and the gold medal scenario has an example. Stupid to punish innocent people.
The points on the pitch has nothing to do with what go,s on in boardrooms and punishment for these scenarios.
Its like the stupid £35 grand and all the slaters in here, I will give another example of why they probably come to that said amount.
Just going off football for a second to explain.
If you were in a work place and had an injury and put a claim in for compensation it works in the manner, That facial scar X amount of pounds, Lost finger or thumb X amount of pounds, Lost arm X amount of pounds, and so on.
Just like this £35 grand City got punished X amount of pounds. and if it was a individual who took drugs X amount of pounds and ban.
And the story go,s on.
Hope I,ve explained myself enough for you to understand me now.
Points system is garbage when you take it away from the pitch.
Just like they were trying to get Chelsea docked points for the sex fiasco abuse thing because of someone years ago in there employment.
Put a google link to a search instead of specific site.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...v=2&ie=UTF-8#q=deduct+chelsea+point+sex+abuse
- 84,401
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Not really, no.
You seem to be saying that it won't be fair to deduct points because the way you think it would be done wouldn't be fair - though it is rather difficult to read your posts, so that might not be the case.
I was the person who, in this thread, originally mooted points deduction as fairer than fines, and I'm talking about how it should be done.
That's a points deduction for the team relevant to the player the club lost track of. The first team loses points if the club loses a first team player, the women's first team loses points if the club loses track of a women's first team player, the U20s if it's an U20s player.
I don't see the relevance of Bolt, but Bolt no longer has his medal because one quarter of his race was run on drugs, because one quarter of his team was on drugs. The team relevant to the offence was punished and that too is the way it should be done.
- 6,231
- Halifax, England
- christara321
And the answer is No, Once again punishing innocent people for one individuals actions.
Yes its drug related, Thats why I mentioned that earlier. (Bolt situation)
But for an Man City's admin mistake of some one not informing the whereabouts of players on a daily basis is stupid to be punished in the context of what your saying.
Lose 3 points for not knowing where Mr X is?
Lets just microchip them all and anti doping agency don,t need paperwork to know where they are. Use GPS, Sounds stupid even has I wrote it.
But I had to write it simply because of not knowing where Mr X is 3 points down pan.
Its already elite divisions or sportsmen/women getting punished by your own admission simply by saying its very rarely gets down to league 1 and 2,
And probably up the championship as well. Like I said earlier how much is under the radar.
Anti doping agency works to find drugs in sport, To punish individuals/teams, but the punishment has to be fit for the crime.
----------
Scenario.
If the season finished tomorrow, Chelsea win it by 8 points. Lovely well done take trophy home.
Anti doping agency 3 weeks later decide John terry we don,t know which wag your with 15 point deduction.
Might has well not play football just leave it all the in boardrooms and decide who gets the trophy later?
Also like the scenario I gave earlier once again at the season end.
And because they didn,t know there whereabouts of a given player. Once again I think its stupid.
And before we go any further, I gave these teams as example. It could be women's teams academy teams under 12s under 15. Reserves. any team is basically what am saying.
------------
Impossible question to find an answer. But to punish an individual for a crime they didn,t commit is wrong.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=siamese+twins+guilty
Reason for the link is you can not get more team than being joined by the physical body?
I read my posts back to myself before I post them and they read ok to me and hopefully to others.
Unfortunately its appears you want to nit pick thru them to get your say/opinions across. No problems fine with that. But please don,t make me out to be stupid.
I,ve had enough of trying to put my point across.
Going to leave it here as am not being understood correctly by your own admission.
Thanks for your time am moving on from the conversation.
Last edited:
- 29,913
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
You're assuming that all of the players are innocent. They may well be, but what this punishment does is opens up the very real possiblity that a club can allow thier players to take performance enhancing drugs, falsly report their whereabouts and then if the anti-doping agency discover that the players whereabouts are wrong, they will face a fine of around £35k. That's not fair to anyone.
I'm not entirely sure what you were using the Bolt case to do but I will assume it was to suggest Bolt was unfairly punished by haivng his medal taken away. However consider this, what if Bolt's team mate had NOT taken performance enhancing drugs, would Jamaica have won that race? Maybe, maybe not, but THAT is the question that gets asked, and since it can't be answered you have to rule that the victory was unfair. It's written into the laws of sport anyway, cheat and you are disqualified, and all the participants know this. It's more unfair on the team that came second to still be denied the win, when it's been found that a person in the winning team was cheating.
Not 100% sure of what you mean here but I'll give it a shot. It is absolutely fair on every other team in the league, for City as a club (players and all) to be punished for breaching quite serious anti-doping regulations.
Absolutely, what if that day Mr X was taking performance enhancing drugs?
That is stupid and a serious breach of human rights and doesn't really have anything to do with what happened. It's the clubs duty to provide this information, the club are well aware of this resposbility. Most other clubs seem to handle it okay.
That's irrelevant, and has no bearing on what punishment is fair if found guilty.
Yes it does, and when the crime could mean that certain players could have gotten away with taking performance enhancing drugs and possibly won games as a result, that crime has to be punished fairly. If those players played in the first team, then either those players are banned or the first team should be deducted points on the assumption that the players involved were on drugs. A certain Mr Ferdinand was banned for 8/9 months for missing a drugs test. Was he on drugs? We don't know, was his ban harsh? yes, was it unfair? No, what if he WAS on drugs? To not ban him would have been unfair on every other team. It would be less harsh to deduct points from the team than to ban the players involved.
First of all, as you said, Bolt was stripped of a gold becuase of a team mate, not him. So there's the precedent. Secondly, sleeping with a team mates wife, while low, does not break any rules of football. What if after the end of the season John Terry, who had been an integral player for the first team, was found to have been taking performance enhancing drugs? Isn't it wrong for the team NOT to be stripped of their title? How would you feel if you were playing for a team who came 2nd and missed out on the title by 1 or 2 points and they were not deducted points?
It's an integral part of the anti-doping regulations, not knowing where players are means players won't be spot tested for drugs which means they are free to take them.
You aren't punishing the individuals, you are punishing the team, in team sports you win as a team, you lose as a team or you break the rules as a team. If one team member decides to punch another player in a game and gets sent off, his team is now at a big disadvantage, is that unfair beucase the other players didn't do anything wrong?
I have to concur with Famine, your posts are hard to read. I have to read them a few times to try to figure out what your point is.
So you know, I don't think your stupid, I just think your wrong on this matter and a little hard to follow. Very big difference there. I've been wrong once before (many times) but I don't think I'm stupid... Although....
Last edited:
- 6,231
- Halifax, England
- christara321
Like I,ve pointed out am wasting my time. I read my sentence, then am clear on what I,ve said before I post. Sorry if you find it hard to read also, but in future with my post just read a sentence before moving on to the next. (Also check the full stops and commas please.)
Like I,ve said Enough is Enough, you enjoy your opinion I have mine.
Just like Joe public who browse the forums not everyone is going to sit there and analyse every sentence every word and the grammatical context, They look at a sentence or paragraph and take the bigger picture of whats been said.
The bigger picture I saw is simple.
You breach, its a penalty across the board. Every one guilty. Points reduction.
Unknown to me which team it was. Just took the Man City has the whole?
An admin error of changing the times/days of training and not notifying the agency, against Rio Ferdinand who appeared to purposely avoided the agency, Two breaches and penalty is has read in famine post all guilty. also thats your opinion too.
Yet one is doing a more severe act to avoid testing. Thats my point.
Usain bolt and others got punished the same when its not there fault. Very wrong regardless of it being a team sport.
Its wrong in the context as you can not tare them all with the same brush because unknown to them one was found to have cheated.
I took the Usain Bolt has a backdrop to punishing many for simply guilty by association.
And thats what I see as a points deduction. Guilty by association.
I understand your point its unfair on second place by the first place using drugs but the start of all this was about whereabouts not banned substances found.
Like I,ve said Man City in this context (Case by case scenario.) was punished £35 grand.
Simply not enough for most people in thread because they have money to spare.
If thats the case Fleetwood should of got a £35 grand penalty if City got a bigger fine its shows it was done a case by case scenario. (Or was it simply we,ll have a few more quid out of City.)
---------
Has for the John terry thing I missed a little text out and should of corrected myself. It was being a little cynical.
Meaning a breach because they didn,t know his whereabouts? Since its common knowledge the husband didn,t know either. (Till later)
--------
Anyone else who wants a stab at the way I read the forums or pull my posts to bits feels free have fun.
Like I,ve said we not all masters of the English language, I come from a time when you left school and straight into work.
Not quite down pit like my forefathers but not too far ahead.
Thats my last reply on the subject enjoy. Have a nice day and no offence to anyone.
(Also check the full stops and commas please.)Like I,ve said Enough is Enough, you enjoy your opinion I have mine.
Just like Joe public who browse the forums not everyone is going to sit there and analyse every sentence every word and the grammatical context, They look at a sentence or paragraph and take the bigger picture of whats been said.
The bigger picture I saw is simple.
You breach, its a penalty across the board. Every one guilty. Points reduction.
Unknown to me which team it was. Just took the Man City has the whole?
An admin error of changing the times/days of training and not notifying the agency, against Rio Ferdinand who appeared to purposely avoided the agency, Two breaches and penalty is has read in famine post all guilty. also thats your opinion too.
Yet one is doing a more severe act to avoid testing. Thats my point.
Usain bolt and others got punished the same when its not there fault. Very wrong regardless of it being a team sport.
Its wrong in the context as you can not tare them all with the same brush because unknown to them one was found to have cheated.
I took the Usain Bolt has a backdrop to punishing many for simply guilty by association.
And thats what I see as a points deduction. Guilty by association.
I understand your point its unfair on second place by the first place using drugs but the start of all this was about whereabouts not banned substances found.
Like I,ve said Man City in this context (Case by case scenario.) was punished £35 grand.
Simply not enough for most people in thread because they have money to spare.
If thats the case Fleetwood should of got a £35 grand penalty if City got a bigger fine its shows it was done a case by case scenario. (Or was it simply we,ll have a few more quid out of City.)
---------
Has for the John terry thing I missed a little text out and should of corrected myself. It was being a little cynical.
Meaning a breach because they didn,t know his whereabouts? Since its common knowledge the husband didn,t know either. (Till later)
--------
Anyone else who wants a stab at the way I read the forums or pull my posts to bits feels free have fun.
Like I,ve said we not all masters of the English language, I come from a time when you left school and straight into work.
Not quite down pit like my forefathers but not too far ahead.
Thats my last reply on the subject enjoy. Have a nice day and no offence to anyone.
Last edited:
- 29,913
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
We'll just agree to disagree then .
Please don't take anything personal about what I posted. Just remember that anything you post on a forum is open to debate, that might not always be your intention. I made a post a few weeks ago and refered to Kazunori Yamauchi as a perfectionist. It wasn't the point of my post, just a throwaway comment, but annoyingly that got far more attention than my actual point, and most of the responses were in dissagreement. That's just what can happen on a forum.
So it's not a case of me or anyone else picking you out specifically, if I quote you and dissagree, it's just discussion. Anyway, I'll leave it there since you've said you don't want to carry on.
.Please don't take anything personal about what I posted. Just remember that anything you post on a forum is open to debate, that might not always be your intention. I made a post a few weeks ago and refered to Kazunori Yamauchi as a perfectionist. It wasn't the point of my post, just a throwaway comment, but annoyingly that got far more attention than my actual point, and most of the responses were in dissagreement. That's just what can happen on a forum.
So it's not a case of me or anyone else picking you out specifically, if I quote you and dissagree, it's just discussion. Anyway, I'll leave it there since you've said you don't want to carry on.
- 28,528
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
- 28,410
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Sutton United's reserve goalkeeper may be in a bit of trouble after eating a pie during the FA cup tie between Sutton and Arsenal last night, because he apparently did it knowing that their sponsor, Sun Bets, had odds on someone in the team eating a pie during the game. So what was probably intended to be a bit of a laugh might end up costing them dearly if they are found to have broken FA rules regarding betting...
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/21/sutton-united-wayne-shaw-fa-betting-rules
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/21/sutton-united-wayne-shaw-fa-betting-rules
