Everything that is wrong with our game is highlighted by the fines imposed on these League 1 & 2 teams... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38002599 Not content with hi-jacking their competition for the benefit of Premier Academies, they now dish out fines even though many of the 'understrength' sides won their games. But the elite can still field their stiffs in the FA Cup and stick two fingers up to all and sundry. Our game is being run by buffoons...
Mind the standard of journalism leaves a lot to be desired....since when have Charlton played a Valley Parade? please log in to view this image The stands at Valley Parade were sparsely populated for Charlton v Southampton's development side Stupid rules set by the EFL, they really do leave themselves open to ridicule........
Always been the same, smaller clubs get hammered the most. I used to be an official of one of my local clubs Wroxham. Our centre forward went for a 50/50 ball with an opposition keeper, missed the ball and caught him. He received a straight red card, which he appealed. I went with him to the appeal hearing which was heard by all ex referees and was subsequently banned for 86 days. Can you imagine how many games that was? That wouldn't happen in the higher leagues. Incidentally, the linesman that said he saw it all from at least 100 yards away was one world cup final official Darren Cann.
Rather than paying a fixed monetary fine they should levy fines according to a percentage of average takings over six months thereby bigger clubs like Chelsh*t being made to pay much higher amounts than the likes of Luton Town, Charlton, Gillingham etc.
Luton knew they were going to take a hit, ridiculous decision and a joke of a competition geared for the benefit of the premier league clubs as usual.
The bans for Sunday League players are regularly stretches that can end their season.Back in the 80s one mate of mine got a 168 day ban and a £50 fine for punching an opponent who racially abused him, he was told 'it was all part of the game'. That fine was almost one weeks pay for someone who was an amateur. Although times have changed in the game those type of bans haven't...
But I admit that I am shocked as Luton "WON" ... and it was even away!!!! I can (possibly) understand a situation that if you field a "reserve" team and loose to a theoretically weaker opponent, then you could accuse the manager of "throwing in the towel". But to play your youngsters (i.e a theoretical weaker team) and to WIN! What is wrong with that? It seems a crazy and fully unjust decision! It also leads the door open to other interpretations. What do you do if you play a full strength team and loose to a theoretically "weaker" opponent? Are you then accused of not trying, or of taking bribes ,or betting on a freak result? If you follow this to the full conclusion, then giant killing will be a punishable offence and any "big team" that loses to "weaker team" is corrupt. End of a rare rant. Have a great day.
The ridiculous irony is that they changed it so that prem clubs could blood youngsters and bring them through yet the lower teams are fined for doing that exact same thing. Utterly ridiculous, if you'd made it up people would call you a loon
What really irritates me about this is that it is OK for Premier league and some Championship teams to field near reserve sides in the FA and League cups, especially in the early rounds. This practice could seriously affect the attendance when top clubs face lower league opposition. Why should fans pay north of £30 to watch a reserve side without the club's "stars" take on Rochdale for example? Again, the lower clubs lose out financially due to lower gate receipts.
Statement from Luton Town Football Club I think they make their point very well http://www.lutontown.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/luton-town-checkatrade-trophy-efl-3419548.aspx Hatters respond to maximum sanction imposed by EFL Luton Town Football Club are dismayed by the EFL’s ruling that the maximum £15,000 fine should be imposed for fielding what the league believes were under-strength teams in securing qualification from Southern Group H of the Checkatrade Trophy. The EFL executive has fined the Hatters £5,000 for each of the three matches played in the much-maligned competition for breaching Rule 7.3 by not starting with at least five players who started the league fixture immediately before or after the Trophy game, or the five players who have started the most league and cup matches to that point in the season. The Town won 2-1 at League One club Gillingham (pictured above) and beat Premier League West Brom’s Under-21s – plus four senior players – to ensure qualification to the knockout stages ahead of last Tuesday’s defeat to Millwall, which was played in front of the second highest Checkatrade Trophy crowd of the week at Kenilworth Road. The £15,000 fine will be deducted from the £20,000 prize money gained from these impressive results. Luton Town chief executive Gary Sweet said: “We entered those teams with our eyes wide open and we accept that we would be fined for doing so. While we don’t feel we should be paying ‘fees’ to get our youngsters experience, we view that as an investment in their development. “We are staggered, however, that we have been fined the maximum amount for our first offence, which was winning away from home at a club from the division above with half-a-dozen first-team regulars in their team. “We played nine graduates of our academy in that game at Gillingham, and seven against a West Brom side containing four players, two of whom who were internationals and had been transferred for several million pounds, and still beat both. “We believe our team selection has added value to a competition that was dying last season and is now – with low three-figure attendances at many matches so far – well and truly on its last legs. “We had the second highest attendance in our one home game against a fellow senior EFL club, which we believe was only because we were playing our youngsters. “We acknowledge our breach of the competition rules, but does our ‘offence’ make a mockery of the competition any more than a club substituting their first-choice goalkeeper after just a couple of minutes of the game to ensure they met the five-player starting rule. “Which is more in keeping with the spirit of the game? Which supports the competition’s ethos of promoting young talent more? “That is clearly disingenuous and by fining us this amount the EFL is effectively saying that promoting young talent is only acceptable if they’re with an EPPP1 club, and they are depriving their own member clubs’ young players access to first-team football.” Read more at http://www.lutontown.co.uk/news/art...e-trophy-efl-3419548.aspx#SgDTh5T1CKaGuzLz.99
