[Football] Hasenhuttl - New signings should be BANNED from re-arranged games

[Springal]

We all have our views. There is a clear counter argument to yours.

I was merely pointing out that just because you don't agree with something, it doesn't make it stupid.

I'm specifically referring to Ralphs point. Like I say it is stupid - he knows how the PL works, he bought it up at a managers meeting. The PL can change any rule if 14 / 20 clubs vote for it.

 

[Lower West Stander]

I'm specifically referring to Ralphs point. Like I say it is stupid - he knows how the PL works, he bought it up at a managers meeting. The PL can change any rule if 14 / 20 clubs vote for it.

Others on here clearly disagree.....

We certainly would be if we were in a relegation battle with Newcastle.

 

[MattBackHome]

Whinge moan bleat

 

[Springal]

Others on here clearly disagree.....

We certainly would be if we were in a relegation battle with Newcastle.

I'd be interested to know Ralphs views on a certain League One team in 2010 who had a few games postponed for weather + because of a cup run and managed sign Do Prado & Forte in a January window who then played in some re-arranged fixtures They then went on to get promoted as 2nd in League One

 

[Lower West Stander]

I'd be interested to know Ralphs views on a certain League One team in 2010 who had a few games postponed for weather + because of a cup run and managed sign Do Prado & Forte in a January window who then played in some re-arranged fixtures They then went on to get promoted as 2nd in League One

Bit disingenuous.

That's a bit like us complaining about Lampard's non goal in South Africa after what happened in 1966.

 

[Springal]

Bit disingenuous.

That's a bit like us complaining about Lampard's non goal in South Africa after what happened in 1966.

Exactly - so it is all a bit silly really and goes against the integrity of the league.

 

[sdmartin1]

I think the way Newcastle have been able to postpone these games over the Christmas period is a complete joke, especially seeing as the predominant reason doesn't seem to be COVID, it seems to be that their two best players got injured in their last game. Now conveniently they have the chance to splurge all this money they've come into, and they'll be a much tougher proposition for all sides.

I sincerely hope we don't have a Hughtonesque 2nd half of the season or I suspect some of our fans will change their tune on the issue.

 

[blockhseagull]

A fair amount of whataboutery there.

But on the actual case being discussed, I think its a valid point to make. I wouldn't be at all surprised if clubs have stalled on playing fixtures in order to get to January and have a chance of patching up their squad before they play these re-arranged games. Project Restart was imposed on all clubs, nobody had a choice when the season stopped and then re-started. Its entirely different to the situation we have now where some clubs (like us ) have played on through despite having covid cases with key players, whilst others have grizzled and got their games postponed.

This rule wouldn't solve all ills, but it would at least partially address the issue of SOME clubs gaining an unfair advantage this month by bolstering their depleted squads in time for their re-arranged game(s) that they themselves had called off.

The reasons may be valid but to suggest changing the rules mid season and after a game has been postponed is just mental.

You can’t change rules because someone has used the system to their advantage. The issue is too late to sort out because the games have already been called off.

The problem is with the PL not the clubs and no amount of moaning and posturing by managers is going to change that.

 

[MJsGhost]

Its quite simple. Any player a club signs during January is not eligible to play in a fixture that was re-arranged from a date prior to the purchase being made. They should not have the benefit of that. If it means drafting in U23's then so be it.

What if a club (let's say Burnley) has a huge outbreak of covid and has a genuine reason for postponement(s). Newcastle then swoop in and buy Tarkowski, Wood and McNeil (players' heads turned by huge £££££, downing tools, so no real choice but to sell).

Should Burnley then not be allowed to play the replacements they buy in the rearranged fixtures?

I don't think the issue here is whether or not new players can play in rearranged fixtures, it's getting the procedure that allows a postponement or not clear and enforced in the first place (that ship may have sailed..).

Clearly, clubs gaming the situation is wrong, but 'innocent' clubs could be disadvantaged by the changes Hasenhüttl is suggesting too.

What about the clubs whose games were postponed just because the other team called for a postponement, should they be 'punished' in the same way with this rule change?

The way I see it, the only remedy that's fair and just is to simply relegate Newcastle to league 2 and see how their murderous owners like it.

 

[Easy 10]

The reasons may be valid but to suggest changing the rules mid season and after a game has been postponed is just mental.

You can’t change rules because someone has used the system to their advantage. The issue is too late to sort out because the games have already been called off.

The problem is with the PL not the clubs and no amount of moaning and posturing by managers is going to change that.

I'm not particularly hung up on bringing in a rule mid-season. We live in unprecedented times, and if the EPL clubs voted 14 to 6 in favour then why not ? Its not too late at all, none of the re-arranged games have been played yet and we've got a Cup weekend in between now anyway. Plenty of time to bring it in.

The club would be no worse off by having their new signing ineligible to play in a re-arranged game, being as when the game was supposed to have been played, they wouldn't have had that player in their squad anyway. So they'd be no worse off. But by bringing in this rule, they'd not be unfairly better off either. And we are just talking EXCULSIVELY about the re-arranged games, no more than that.

 

[el punal]

Don't these EPL managers just LOVE to bitch and moan about every damn thing. That guy in particular is living on borrowed time and running ln fumes. Jeez!

And the irony of it all is his club have just been bought by some East European —————- (insert your own title/label/oligarch/description etc.). Presumably, then, money will be pumped into said club to buy players to improve their lot, which of course would not have happened a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Easy 10]

What if a club (let's say Burnley) has a huge outbreak of covid and has a genuine reason for postponement(s). Newcastle then swoop in and buy Tarkowski, Wood and McNeil (players' heads turned by huge £££££, downing tools, so no real choice but to sell).

Should Burnley then not be allowed to play the replacements they buy in the rearranged fixtures?

I don't think the issue here is whether or not new players can play in rearranged fixtures, it's getting the procedure that allows a postponement or not clear and enforced in the first place (that ship may have sailed..).

Clearly, clubs gaming the situation is wrong, but 'innocent' clubs could be disadvantaged by the changes Hasenhüttl is suggesting too.

What about the clubs whose games were postponed just because the other team called for a postponement, should they be 'punished' in the same way with this rule change?

The way I see it, the only remedy that's fair and just is to simply relegate Newcastle to league 2 and see how their murderous owners like it.

1. If players are under contract, then the selling club ALWAYS has a choice not to sell. Thats just fact. If Burnley were stupid enough to sell their crown jewels mid-season to a relegation rival, then that's their lookout and they would have to live or die by that decision.

2. The club that did not get the game called off should be able to play who they like, including new signings IMO. Although I could be persuaded that both squads should be 'as per' prior to the transfer window, as that would protect the integrity of the fixture overall.

3. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Swansman]

I agree with his point, it did feel like some teams tried to postpone (or at least didnt make an effort to get ready to play) to get some names in.

 

[blockhseagull]

I'm not particularly hung up on bringing in a rule mid-season. We live in unprecedented times, and if the EPL clubs voted 14 to 6 in favour then why not ? Its not too late at all, none of the re-arranged games have been played yet and we've got a Cup weekend in between now anyway. Plenty of time to bring it in.

The club would be no worse off by having their new signing ineligible to play in a re-arranged game, being as when the game was supposed to have been played, they wouldn't have had that player in their squad anyway. So they'd be no worse off. But by bringing in this rule, they'd not be unfairly better off either. And we are just talking EXCULSIVELY about the re-arranged games, no more than that.

It is still changing the rules of the game mid season …. People want fairness and integrity and that isn’t either.

You can’t punish a club AFTER a decision has been made … simple as that.

Clubs pushed for postponements because it suited them, would they have pushed for them IF this rule had been in place … maybe not. But you can’t put new rules in places after decisions have been already made (despite how dodgy they are )

However.. this rule SHOULD be implemented for subsequent seasons to stop anything like this happening again.

 

[Springal]

It is still changing the rules of the game mid season …. People want fairness and integrity and that isn’t either.

You can’t punish a club AFTER a decision has been made … simple as that.

Clubs pushed for postponements because it suited them, would they have pushed for them IF this rule had been in place … maybe not. But you can’t put new rules in places after decisions have been already made (despite how dodgy they are )

However.. this rule SHOULD be implemented for subsequent seasons to stop anything like this happening again.

My response was poorly worded. But basically this.

Again - there is a lot of moaning by clubs about things but really it is up to them, their CEOs/Chairmans to sort it out. Same with how many you can have out with COVID etc. This stuff should have been sorted out in the summer (you know - when covid was still around) and written in the rules so everyone knew the score.

 

[Easy 10]

It is still changing the rules of the game mid season …. People want fairness and integrity and that isn’t either.

You can’t punish a club AFTER a decision has been made … simple as that.

Clubs pushed for postponements because it suited them, would they have pushed for them IF this rule had been in place … maybe not. But you can’t put new rules in places after decisions have been already made (despite how dodgy they are )

However.. this rule SHOULD be implemented for subsequent seasons to stop anything like this happening again.

How is it a "punishment" by not allowing them to utilise a player that they wouldn't have had in their squad at the time of the original fixture anyway ? They'd be literally no worse off than they would have been at the time the game was supposed to have been played.

Its not a punishment at all. They'll still have the benefit of their new signing(s) for every other game for the remainder of the season. Just not the re-arranged ones.

 

[MJsGhost]

1. If players are under contract, then the selling club ALWAYS has a choice not to sell. Thats just fact. If Burnley were stupid enough to sell their crown jewels mid-season to a relegation rival, then that's their lookout and they would have to live or die by that decision.

2. The club that did not get the game called off should be able to play who they like, including new signings IMO. Although I could be persuaded that both squads should be 'as per' prior to the transfer window, as that would protect the integrity of the fixture overall.

3. Couldn't agree more.

1. That choice to keep them at all costs may come with a consequence that still deprives them of the players (downing tools). It's a stretch of the ifs, buts and maybes I accept, but it's possible.
You've also got the knock-on effects that other teams might take issue with - if Burnley's 'choice' to sell their best players means they get bummed in the rearranged fixtures (where they can't field their newly bought replacements), it'll skew the league in favour of those opponents, giving an unfair advantage over the teams around them in the table...

2. For squads to be 'as per', they would need to include the players moved on, or they really wouldn't be how they were at the time.

3. We can only dream.

It's all a fcking mess and I don't see how it can be sorted fairly (other than relegating Newcastle)

 

[blockhseagull]

How is it a "punishment" by not allowing them to utilise a player that they wouldn't have had in their squad at the time of the original fixture anyway ? They'd be literally no worse off than they would have been at the time the game was supposed to have been played.

Its not a punishment at all. They'll still have the benefit of their new signing(s) for every other game for the remainder of the season. Just not the re-arranged ones.

It’s a punishment because you are changing the rules … you are saying they can’t use players which as it stands the rules say they can.

They should have thought about all this BEFORE the season started.

Bit like the managers moaning about kick off times for matches AFTER they’ve accepted all the cash from the broadcasters.

 

[Easy 10]

Mildly surprised this idea has so much opposition on here tbh, so I will have to agree to disagree. I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

It'll be interesting to see the reactions when a fully rejuvenated, expensively assembled team of new signings who are catching up on their postponed fixtures absolutely dry-hump the teams they were supposed to be playing last month. We could well become victims ourselves. Imagine Man U sign, I dunno, Aubamayang. And he comes on off the bench and crashes in a hat-trick against us.

I know GP would suck his teeth, shrug and say 'it is what it is', But I'd imagine I might just be a wee bit narky about it.

 

[Fran Sandaza 8 my hamster]

Ralph correctly is stating that teams have been cheating by lying to get postponements.
He can't say that though without getting in trouble, so very cleverly he has just suggested a solution.
It will never happen.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk