Wolves fined £25,000 over Old Trafford team selection

[SimonNo7]

McCarthy claimed the win over Burnley justified his Old Trafford selection
Wolves have been hit with a £25,000 suspended Premier League fine for fielding a weakened team for their 3-0 December defeat at Manchester United.

Boss Mick McCarthy made 10 changes to the side that beat Tottenham 3-0 as he rested key players ahead of the game against Burnley, which Wolves won 2-0.

McCarthy, whose side are 16th, recalled nine players to face the Clarets.
He accepted the verdict but said he aimed "only to pick a team that was in the best position to get a result".

McCarthy, whose side are currently only one point off the relegation zone, defended his team selection at the time but was much criticised by his club's travelling fans, plus United were not then in the best of form.

A Premier League statement read: "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 E20.

"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 B13.

"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 League's E20 rule stipulates that clubs must field a full-strength side in all top-flight games.

However, goalkeeper Marcus Hahnemann was the only name on the Old Trafford team-sheet that had started the victory over Tottenham at White Hart Lane three days earlier.

Former Republic of Ireland manager McCarthy said at the time: "We had a great result at Spurs and every player rated it 9 to 9.5/10 in terms of how hard it was.

"I need to protect them. If you have another match of that magnitude, you can't cope. We have big games coming."

However, his team selection prompted a furious reaction from some Wolves fans, with many of the 3,000 that travelled to Manchester asking for their money back.

Other observers claimed the selection was unfair to United's title rivals and could set a dangerous precedent.

The Premier League seem intent on ensuring clubs do not field second-string teams in the future.

Their statement continued: "In coming to this decision the board also wants to put clubs on notice that any future rule breach of this nature would be subject to a disciplinary commission that would have available a full range of sanctions."

However, Wanderers striker Kevin Doyle, who scored his side's second goal in the win over Burnley, claimed the League's stance was flawed.
"I'm surprised anything has come of it, to be honest," the Republic of Ireland international told BBC Radio Five live.

"They [the Premier League] are going to have to end up fining a lot of teams over the next few years, I think, if they are going to go about it that way.

"Are they going to start fining clubs for changing teams in the FA Cup, the League Cup, when they go from Champions League to the league?

"Bigger teams change their sides massively every week, so why is that any different for us?"

The Molineux club's chief executive, Jez Moxey, was more conciliatory and added: "This ruling may now lead to a wider discussion regarding the issue of squad rotation and the Premier League's rules.

"We look forward to fully participating in any such debate at future Premier League meetings."

Moxey, meanwhile, gave his backing to his manager and stated: "One thing that's never been in question is the integrity of Mick McCarthy.

"He picked a team that, in his view, was in the best possible position to get a result in that particular game.

"He made it unselfishly and with the best interests of Wolves in mind."

Well I'm sure this ruling by the hardline Premier League will stop this ever happening again!

[-V-]

That'l teach em

[Craig_H]

That'l teach em

I really dont get why the authorities bother with these derisory 'punishments', it's just a mockery.

Either put it in stone at the start of a season - do this, and you'll be docked 2 points - or dont bother with pointless fines that mean nothing.

If they docked points for this, nobody would do it. Same as with defenders tugging shirts in the box for corners - give a pen and nobody will do it anymore.

Players who dive - straight red and it'll stop.

Easy really.

I hope Wolves go down by 1 point or goal difference even, as that really WILL teach them for throwing the game at OT.

[Exiled_red]

I really dont get why the authorities bother with these derisory 'punishments', it's just a mockery.

Either put it in stone at the start of a season - do this, and you'll be docked 2 points - or dont bother with pointless fines that mean nothing.

If they docked points for this, nobody would do it. Same as with defenders tugging shirts in the box for corners - give a pen and nobody will do it anymore.

Players who dive - straight red and it'll stop.

Easy really.

I hope Wolves go down by 1 point or goal difference even, as that really WILL teach them for throwing the game at OT.

[Kenneth]

The people who were really punnished were the other title contenders and a small fine doesn't help them at all.

[Scratch]

Well, so long as they're consistent...next time we "rest Gerrard" or United Rooney, then they will not be fielding a full strength side and should face the same punishment...shouldn't matter if it's one player rested or 10, it's still not a "full strength" side.

Makes having a squad pointless in my book, if you can only play the lesser squad players when another player is injured.

If you have to register a squad with the PL and the FA, then you should be allowed to pick and 11 players from that named squad, regardless of perceived value and "betterness".

[Kenneth]

Well, so long as they're consistent...next time we "rest Gerrard" or United Rooney, then they will not be fielding a full strength side and should face the same punishment...shouldn't matter if it's one player rested or 10, it's still not a "full strength" side.

Makes having a squad pointless in my book, if you can only play the lesser squad players when another player is injured.

If you have to register a squad with the PL and the FA, then you should be allowed to pick and 11 players from that named squad, regardless of perceived value and "betterness".

Not everything has to be black and white though. Resting one player is significantly different than changing your entire first team for a match and then talking to the press about the reason.

[Craig_H]

They should operate a similar system to Spain or the CL, when you submit a squad list of say 24 or 25 players, and only those on the list can be used for league games.

In January, you can then make maybe 4 changes to this list.

If we had this, it'd stop people just playing kids and casting the integrity of the league into doubt. If they wanted to play kids, they'd have to be included on the squad list and if a manager wants to do that, fair enough, but those kids would each take up a space on his squad list of 24.

So if he wants to sacrifice a senior first team squad member, in favour of a kid, that's upto him.

[BillobShaisley]

I agree with scratch. If people are in your squad they should be available for selection in any game. The number of changes is no indication of being weakened either.

Thankfully football isn't governed by any consistency of legal precedent so next time Arsenals 'wonder' kids play, nothing wil be said or done, except from maybe Warnock and Mccarthy and everyone will just claim they are bitter.

[Scratch]

Not everything has to be black and white though. Resting one player is significantly different than changing your entire first team for a match and then talking to the press about the reason.

Ah, but rule 20e or whatever states that you MUST play your strongest side...if United drop Rooney and replace him with Berbatov/Owen then that is not their strongest side, it's as simple as that.

I agree with the poster who said that the way to counter-act this is by forcing the club to name a squad of players, and submit that list...i actually thought a system similar to that was already in place, as teams have to submit squad numbers don't they?

However, i would alter it to include 30 players, as the season is long, and allow 5 changes to be made before the end of the January transfer window. Once that is submitted, a manager s free to pick and choose as he sees fit. Would get rid of any ambiguity.

[Kinell]

It's basically match fixing. The penalty should be a lot tougher but then again Arsenal putting out it's youth team in the Carling cup is an equal offence, so where do you draw the line?

It's bad and it needed to be punished for the good of the game, but I can't help but feel Wolve's were wise with their decision to field a weaken team as it helped ensure 3 big points the following match against another one of the relegation battlers.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other; highly debatable issue.

[Exiled_red]

They should operate a similar system to Spain or the CL, when you submit a squad list of say 24 or 25 players, and only those on the list can be used for league games.

In January, you can then make maybe 4 changes to this list.

If we had this, it'd stop people just playing kids and casting the integrity of the league into doubt. If they wanted to play kids, they'd have to be included on the squad list and if a manager wants to do that, fair enough, but those kids would each take up a space on his squad list of 24.

So if he wants to sacrifice a senior first team squad member, in favour of a kid, that's upto him.

I'm not even sure that would solve the problem, assuming you had close to a full squad (of 24) available, instead of selecting 1-11, you select 12-22, under the Spanish system that would be a full strength team despite featuring no first 11 player.

In bigger squads its likely that few youngsters would get a chance, taking our squad for example there are (by my count) 21 'senior players' leaving 3 spaces for youngsters. We only 2 keepers in that 21 so a 3rd Young keeper would likely take up one of those 3 places, leaving two spots for the likes of Darby, Spearing, Kelly, El Zhar, Ayala, Plessis and Pacheco (all of whom have featured in the last couple of seasons). Ok we could get rid of the one or two fringe players to accomodate them but would this happen?

I could see the system could make the league more competitive in that it would prevent big clubs buying up players who aren't going to feature regularly (think Man City's excess of strikers), so these better players would be playing more regularly but that is a different arguement

[Exiled_red]

It's basically match fixing. The penalty should be a lot tougher but then again Arsenal putting out it's youth team in the Carling cup is an equal offence, so where do you draw the line?

It's bad and it needed to be punished for the good of the game, but I can't help but feel Wolve's were wise with their decision to field a weaken team as it helped ensure 3 big points the following match against another one of the relegation battlers.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other; highly debatable issue.

IMO the cup is a seperate issue, the intergrity of the league is based on fairness, everyone plays everyone twice, whereas the cup is just whoever you meet on the day, the same level of 'fairness' doesn't apply because of the nature of the competition.

[Kenneth]

Ah, but rule 20e or whatever states that you MUST play your strongest side...if United drop Rooney and replace him with Berbatov/Owen then that is not their strongest side, it's as simple as that.

I agree with the poster who said that the way to counter-act this is by forcing the club to name a squad of players, and submit that list...i actually thought a system similar to that was already in place, as teams have to submit squad numbers don't they?

However, i would alter it to include 30 players, as the season is long, and allow 5 changes to be made before the end of the January transfer window. Once that is submitted, a manager s free to pick and choose as he sees fit. Would get rid of any ambiguity.

It is different not playing someone because they need a rest. It is very easy to argue that a tired Gerrard is not in the strongest 11 for Liverpool. Saying you didn't pick people because you were saving them for a different game is different.

[Exiled_red]

Ah, but rule 20e or whatever states that you MUST play your strongest side...if United drop Rooney and replace him with Berbatov/Owen then that is not their strongest side, it's as simple as that.

I agree with the poster who said that the way to counter-act this is by forcing the club to name a squad of players, and submit that list...i actually thought a system similar to that was already in place, as teams have to submit squad numbers don't they?

However, i would alter it to include 30 players, as the season is long, and allow 5 changes to be made before the end of the January transfer window. Once that is submitted, a manager s free to pick and choose as he sees fit. Would get rid of any ambiguity.

It's a very subjective opinion, in the case of individual players you could make the case of them being off form, tired or carrying a knock. Or to take your example Owen or Berbatov looking sharper in training than Rooney (unlikely in reality ). But since they have 'tackled' the issue, I'm curious to know where the line has been drawn, 5 players, 6?, 7?, 8? 9? or 10? Or is it just the fact that McCarthy confirmed why he did it that has seen them 'punished'?