1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Just a thought

Discussion in 'Sunderland' started by safc-noggieland, Oct 9, 2018.

  1. safc-noggieland

    safc-noggieland Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    1,105
    Why can’t we play Max Power tonight?
    If the owldfarts at the FA in their wisdom say this is not a class1 game there does not count in his enforced football ban then logically he should be allowed to play. I am not suggesting he should only that he could. What think yous ?
     
    #1
  2. polyphemus

    polyphemus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,790
    Likes Received:
    3,446
    Shame on you.

    Assuming that LOGIC an THE FA are words that can be used in the same sentence.<whistle>
     
    #2
    Gil T Azell likes this.
  3. cumbrianmackem

    cumbrianmackem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    8,931
    Likes Received:
    24,421
    Iirc Powers last suspension covered the game v Stoke and we couldn't include it as part of his three match ban AND he wasn't allowed to play as he was suspended.
    None of that makes sense and Jack Ross expressed a similar thought as it is unfair, however I think it also affected Southend who had two players suspended and were in the same boat as us.
    None of this makes any sense but we are dealing with the upper echelon of football authority here which says everything.
     
    #3
    clockstander likes this.
  4. safc-noggieland

    safc-noggieland Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    1,105
    Upper echelons is that a synonym for ‘owldfarts’. They have in my memory been anything other than antagonistic and at times downright nasty to SAFC. Perhsps some can find instances to counter my belief. I away an oracle.
     
    #4
    cumbrianmackem likes this.
  5. clockstander

    clockstander Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    34,401
    Learn to type man, its haway <cheers>
     
    #5
  6. safc-noggieland

    safc-noggieland Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    1,105
     
    #6
  7. clockstander

    clockstander Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    34,401
    Thats better. <laugh>
     
    #7
  8. Expat-Cat

    Expat-Cat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2014
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    356
    Not supporting the decision process, but the idea is that "using up" a suspension in a Chekatrade match is unfair on those L1 and L2 clubs not invited to take part, but playing is not right as the player is suspended. So you get the worst of both worlds.
     
    #8
  9. The Norton Cat

    The Norton Cat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    12,435
    All L1 and L2 clubs take part though don't they? The Checkatrade is just the old Associate Member's Cup so by definition is the clubs in L1 and L2 (and now the invited u21 sides)
     
    #9
  10. Expat-Cat

    Expat-Cat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2014
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    356
    Just looked up the rules, and yes you are correct. It's just the academies of Premier clubs or some such that are invited. So there's not even a twisted logic in the ruling
     
    #10

Share This Page