Premier League's response to my email regarding United game...

[FrankMunro-371]

Unless I am mistaken, the F.a. has a rule relating to this matter.

[glasgowwolf]

Thats the reply I received.
I have replied telling them they are a corrupt organisation with one rule for the big 4 and one rule for the rest

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your email.
I am sorry that you are disappointed by the Boards decision to charge Wolverhampton Wanderers following their breach of rules E.20 and B.13. The Premier League Board has issued Wolverhampton Wanderers FC with a suspended £25,000 fine after deciding that the team fielded in their League fixture against Manchester United on 15 December 2009 was not full strength and therefore in breach of Rule E.20. The Board also deemed that the Club had failed to fulfil its obligations to the League and other Clubs in the utmost good faith and was therefore in breach of Rule B.13.
The Board considered submissions from Wolverhampton Wanderers FC and had sympathy for the explanation submitted by the Club in relation to similar cases from previous seasons. However the Board ruled that this case could be differentiated from the other matches cited and that disciplinary action was warranted. The rules are set by the 20 shareholders from each Club, and the Administrative Office for the League is in place to ensure that the rules are followed. Wolves made 10 changes to their squad. Man Utd made a similar number of changes to their squad against Hull last season, and were reminded of the ruling at the time. They went on to win the game, therefore differentiating the situation from the Wolves match.
We would like to assure you that the Board also wants to put Clubs on notice that any future Rule breach of this nature would be subject to a Disciplinary Commission.
We understand your frustration, as a loyal and passionate supporter, and we thank you for taking the time to contact us.
Kind regards,
Communications Team

[Aikiwolf]

Hi all, fist time posting here but as I just posted a similar article on the 606, which is awaiting moderation, I guess the premier league's email I've recieved today is inciting hatred as it is the EXACT same email Dan has been sent, I thought I'd pop over here and post about it!

I'm more than irratated to find out it's a standard response which only answered one of my questions - so I've emailed them again!

[Penk Wolf]

Hi all, fist time posting here but as I just posted a similar article on the 606, which is awaiting moderation, I guess the premier league's email I've recieved today is inciting hatred as it is the EXACT same email Dan has been sent, I thought I'd pop over here and post about it!

I'm more than irratated to find out it's a standard response which only answered one of my questions - so I've emailed them again!

I find it very poor that you, Dan and Glasgow have received the same responce. I realise they could have thousands of e-mails to answer, but such is life.

[Aikiwolf]

I find it very poor that you, Dan and Glasgow have received the same responce. I realise they could have thousands of e-mails to answer, but such is life.

yeah it's irratating but I'm just going to keep on emailing them until I get a real answer! I've already replied thanking them for their response and then asking if they will answer these questions:

"is there a maximium amount of players that can be rotated/changed before it is considered a breach" and

"as a First Team Squad is submitted to the Premier League does this mean that the Premier League decide who out of that Squad is the better player? Or do teams also have to submit a best 11 and this is the full strength side which should be played in all games?"

so we'll see wht the response is too that!

[Jabbawolf]

I find it very poor that you, Dan and Glasgow have received the same responce. I realise they could have thousands of e-mails to answer, but such is life.

For what it's worth, I had exactly the same response too.

[Dan]

At least they could be arsed to set up a mail merge to reply back to us!

Techinally they are saying the squad we played is shit, we know its shit but as Aikiwolf said; they are registered as first team players and all eligible to play in any Premier League match this season.

[Atlas 1951]

In purely logical terms, "weakened" is a relative description, not an absolute one. Deutsch's argument that Liverpool's team v. Fulham was "acceptable" is irrelevent here, IMO. It would be impossible for the PL to define an absolute with regards to a minimum standard that teams should adhere to: the Watfords and Derbys of this world never fielded a team that wasn't well below such a hypothetical standard. "Weakened" means "weakened", and it is obvious that a big clubs "weakened" side will be better than a relegation-struggler's "weakened" side, but in both case they are fielding weakened teams.

[Penk Wolf]

In purely logical terms, "weakened" is a relative description, not an absolute one. Deutsch's argument that Liverpool's team v. Fulham was "acceptable" is irrelevent here, IMO. It would be impossible for the PL to define an absolute with regards to a minimum standard that teams should adhere to: the Watfords and Derbys of this world never fielded a team that wasn't well below such a hypothetical standard. "Weakened" means "weakened", and it is obvious that a big clubs "weakened" side will be better than a relegation-struggler's "weakened" side, but in both case they are fielding weakened teams.

Which is the problem, it is all down to interpretation and unfortunately the PL want it that way so they can interpret it how they want.

[Aikiwolf]

Which is the problem, it is all down to interpretation and unfortunately the PL want it that way so they can interpret it how they want.

good shout Penk Wolf! here are the emails I returned to them and the reply....

Hi,

thanks for your quick response.

I note that you have answered one of my points regarding last weeks suspended fine - which is that the weakend team is only applicable if the team fielding the weakend side looses. This seems a reasonable ruling and, in my opinion, maintains a balance between the integrity of the competition and allowing clubs to bring through youth players

Following on from this I refer to my previous email and I would appreciate some clarification about the maximum amount of players that a team may change without incurring a penalty.

and also what defines the strongest team?

the email chain is attached below for your convieniance.

Thanks

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

the prem reply was:

This is a difficult situation, but as I am sure you are aware there is no specific ruling about what defines the strongest team or indeed the maximum number of players a team can change. This is a difficult thing to judge, but because of the number of changes were so high - 10 out of 11 players, this was deemed to be a rule break, and not in line with the spirit of the game, pertaining to rule B13.

I really am sorry that we cannot resolve this to your satisfaction.

Kind regards,

Communications Team

[spiritualwolf]

It's interesting that they don't even realise that there were only really NINE changes that were relevant - we had to change Dave Edwards because he was injured....

[Uncle Festa]

Liverpool made 10 changes for Fulham. Pennant was one of the players that played in the previous game but was substituted in both games. So 9 and a half weaker players is ok for Liverpool. And whilst you can say that still put out a relatively strong side, Wolves can also point to the fact that most of our team at United are Internationals and contained players who are first team regulars - Zubar, Mancienne, Hanamman, Foley, Dave Jones came on as a late sub. Recalling Friend was taking the piss but the rest of the team selection was fair enough if your comapring against Liverpool and United.

[PassItPassIt]

Mancienne had only just been dropped as well. First team regular up to then, missed just one game (I think?) then brought back for the United match.


And Wolves lost a match they were expected to lose. Liverpool lost one they were expected not to lose, thus affecting the relegation battle. That was Fulham's first win in eleven, iirc.

[Kenny]

From the DW Detective agency

Man Utd A v West Ham A Teams

Hahnemann - Played in both
Zubar - Played in both
Elokobi - Played in both
Foley - Played in both
Mancienne - Played in both
Halford - Played in both
Jarvis - Played in both
Jones - Played in both

We played another weak team!!!

[Penk Wolf]

From the DW Detective agency

Man Utd A v West Ham A Teams

Hahnemann - Played in both
Zubar - Played in both
Elokobi - Played in both
Foley - Played in both
Mancienne - Played in both
Halford - Played in both
Jarvis - Played in both
Jones - Played in both

We played another weak team!!!

Yes, but it's okay because we won.

[spiritualwolf]

It was nice to see the hypocrisy highlighted on SSN last night. Pretty much everyone's on our side now....

[nimrod]

It was nice to see the hypocrisy highlighted on SSN last night. Pretty much everyone's on our side now....

that's good. a shocking decision by a shocking organisation.

"..They went on to win the game, therefore differentiating the situation from the Wolves match..."

possibly the most ridiculous thing they could have said. Either a rule is a rule and should be applied regardless of the circumstances, or it isn't a rule and they are discriminatory.

[Dan]

Its like saying I shot someone but didn't kill them so I get away with it. Load of bollocks.

[The Bear]

Its like saying I shot someone but didn't kill them so I get away with it. Load of bollocks.

An odd example. Murder carries a different penalty to Attempted Murder.

[Manchester Wolf]

But if it was up the the PL there would be no punishment for attempted murder (or no punishment for successful murder if you look at it the other way around!)

[FrankMunro-371]

So Wolves can expect to be charged for playing their reserve team again. Either that or the original decision will be rescinded.

[The Bear]

Neither. We were punished for making 10 changes for one game, no matter what bullshit the PL come out with to justify it.

[Dreamer]

Not that they will, but the Premier League really need to get rid of the grey area they've created in this 'weakened teams' rule. Fulham purposely and admittedly rested key players against Hull yesterday as they keep one eye on the Wolfsburg tie. Although it wasn't as many as 9 or 10 it still wasn't their strongest team available. If they don't see that as playing a weakened team is it then just a number thing? Total joke...

[Deutsch Wolf]

Drogba, Rooney and Ferdinand all missing yesterday as well....I should think that the latter two will play against Bayern in midweek.

The way the "rule" is worded is ridiculous, if they stuck to the letter of it then a team would be charged every other week.

[Dreamer]

The way the "rule" is worded is ridiculous, if they stuck to the letter of it then a team would be charged every other week.

Oh definately, but they've opened a can of worms by picking on the new boys and after doing so should clear up the wording and also follow the rule up against all other teams. Either that or say they were wrong to fine Wolves.

[Toon Wolf]

Not that they will, but the Premier League really need to get rid of the grey area they've created in this 'weakened teams' rule. Fulham purposely and admittedly rested key players against Hull yesterday as they keep one eye on the Wolfsburg tie. Although it wasn't as many as 9 or 10 it still wasn't their strongest team available. If they don't see that as playing a weakened team is it then just a number thing? Total joke...

I was going to bring up Fulham. Their 6 changes allowing Hull a comfortable win are more likely to have an impact on other teams than our 10.

[FrankMunro-371]

I wait with interest to see what action, if any, is taken by the F.A., over Fulhams team selection yesterday.

[Banjo]

An odd example. Murder carries a different penalty to Attempted Murder.

I thought the penalties available to the court for the attempted commission of an offence is anything up to and including the penalty for the actual commission of that offence?

[PassItPassIt]

Not that they will, but the Premier League really need to get rid of the grey area they've created in this 'weakened teams' rule. Fulham purposely and admittedly rested key players against Hull yesterday as they keep one eye on the Wolfsburg tie. Although it wasn't as many as 9 or 10 it still wasn't their strongest team available. If they don't see that as playing a weakened team is it then just a number thing? Total joke...

According to soccernet here, West Ham are considering making a complaint. I doubt they would achieve anything beyond getting Fulham fined, if that, but it would be interesting to see how it was dealt with if it happened.

[Dreamer]

Looking forward to hearing the outcome of this. I expect nothing to be done which inturn would make our fine ridiculous and unjust, and even if they did, the Premier League are going to look like a right load of useless pricks either way.