HI all,

Just wanted your thoughts on the Ham v For game, and in particular the 120k fine for the 7-1 defeat.

I know there is a rule for weakened teams, but

a) Some of my better players were in the team
I tried to play several of the players aggresively to make up for any lower SL
c) I think the dice went against FOR somewhat - 10-1 on shots rarely equates to 7-1 on the day
d) Forfar really don't have the players to play constantly strong sides
e) I have been working hard with FOR to build the club financially, and the 120k knock would be bad news for the club

If I made one error it was not playing my top keeper in the game - and I regret that decision. I also might have played Stall instead of O - but I hate being totally defensive.

I therefore wondered whether the fine might be re-considered, and am asking the thoughts of other managers on this issue.

Personally (and I don't know whether this is the correct stage for this conversation), I think the issue of the fine for weakened sides should be up to the Commy. The present set-up does tend to favour the stronger teams, and simply ends up making the weaker teams even worse off.

With apologies to all who might be offended, this appeal should be thoroughly rejected. FOR rested virtually all star players during the Cup match against Clyde, and then plays only a single star against HAM and is blown out. Your star GK was sitting on the bench wasting EL because he was maxed out at 10 at the halfway point of the CLY match (he had 7 EL at the start of the game, so when he didn't play in the first half, he was guaranteed to have at least 10 at the conclusion of the match). Then, he sits against HAM and again wastes EL. What was the point? Your SL 32 striker...same situation. He enters the Clyde match with 8 EL, but does not play vs. CLY and sits vs. HAM. Wasted EL. Your star DF has SL 25, and he was at EL 4 prior to the Cup match, but you also sat him out during the HAM match and he maxed out at 10 EL again. Wasted EL. The same is true with MF Lombardi...he enters the Clyde match at 8 EL but does not play, and with 10 EL fails to appear in the HAM match.

I really feel for a last place team struggling for points, trying to conserve EL and money, and just trying to get out of last place. We were there last season! Unfortunately, this is exactly what the blowout rule is for. Why exactly you are letting your stars sit on the bench with 10 EL is beyond me.

This appeal should be denied.

The blowout rule is there to prevent games being thrown, and so that a decent lineup is submited where possible.

The blowout rule should not be over-turned due to schoolboy tactical errors.

FOR deserved to be blowout as they could have fielded much higher SL players on full EL: even if they had played 60 minutes they would have used 4 EL and received 4 EL so still be on 8 or 10 EL. I believe this was a poor error by FOR, and not unlucky. Planning resources is everything in this game.

FOR failed to prepare, so should have prepared to fail !

FOR made a further tactical error by playing with just 1 DF and 1 SW! As Steve DEV pointed out on 'after-match-comment' 2 DF were man-marking! You would only have 2 man markers in a defence of 5 or 6, so FOR fell to the 2:1 rule.
SCHOOL BOY ERROR.

FOR failed to prepare, so should have prepared to fail !

The blowout rule has served its purpose now I think: -

a ) FOR will go and read the 2:1 rule
b ) FOR will not play with just 1 DF and 1 SW again
c ) FOR 2-3-3 formation will never be repeated
d ) FOR will not leave high SL players with high EL on the sub bench needlessly

A bit harsh going on about schoolboy errors.

Nathan is new to this league and so doesn't know all the rules all that well - and there's plenty of experienced managers who are like that. The 2:1 rule catches a lot of people out.

In fact in another league I once marked a player with 3 low SL DF and ended up with these stats.

GP 15.0
DEF 24.5
OFF 55.0

OK, it was only my 4th ever match at this kind of game but it can happen to everyone.

I was also playing Early cross with one winger who wasn't that high in SL.

Having said that I don't think the 120k should be given back, for the reasons Phil gives. Yes it's hard on Nathan who was given a team in an awful position, and he needs the money to get to 1500k so he can buy 35 CP next season, but it's only 5 CP he's lost. Forfar won't be in too bad a shape next season.

I accept that mistakes were made, and I will learn from them - but surely the premise of the fine should be based on whether the game was intentionally thrown? I would reject that charge. If FOR had wanted to throw the game, I could have played a much worse side.

The second point is that the mandatory fining simply works in favour of the teams that have the resources not to worry about rotation.

Fair enough, I should not have played 2 markers, and I should have played 2 extra players - my keeper (which I nearly did) and another striker - but if you look at the FOR squad I'm afraid that there will always be situations where I have to play weakened sides, and will have to use aggresive behaviour in an attempt to make up for SL loss.

I know full well that plenty of sides at the top of the respective divisions rest plenty of players against opposition when the mood suits - but these teams have better back up players at their disposal.

Like any club, there is a need to look at where best to deploy resouces. If we are basing this league on real life, then plenty of lower placed sides rest against top teams in order to concentrate on more immediate concerns - and for me that was EST.

Anyway, the premise of this game is slighly new to me (some extremely competitive managers - and I say that in the most uncontroversial way - but as you will all note, I am committed to the cause and mistakes bourne out of inexperience will be rectified.

Personally, I think the blowout rule is harsh.

Nathan obviously didn't throw this match. The loss of morale, points and pride is probably penalty enough! He's new to the game and an additional penalty of this magnitude is not equitable with the efforts and obvious enthusiasm he has brought to the game already.

Make it a suspended sentence if needed, but in my opinion I think his claim is warranted.

Good luck Nathan

I think it should be a reversed!
1) Nathan is a new manager
2) For is such a week Team and Nathan is trying to build it up 120 is alot of
cash for me never mind them

I hate this rule and i always stall when 3/4 goals ahead

It should either be in effect 100% of the time or not at ALL

Some managers have cause their teams to be in the state they are
and when they get blown out, they talk about how they tried there best
whats the difference between school boy errors for a newbie
to Old managers who have crippled there team ?

I do not think that the appeal should be granted here, but I do want to apologize for any harsh tone in my previous post. Honestly, I did not think that this was an inexperienced manager due to the quality of his press postings!

Some great responses here folks.

However, SESL Chairman has rejected this blowout appeal.

Clearly FOR did not try to lose ther game on purpose. However they left high SL players on high EL on the bench needlessly when playing them 45 or 60 minutes would have kept them fresh on full EL for next games.

Nathan has handed the whole situation in a calm and dignified manner via our email discussions, and his endless input on pre and post match comments means there is every chance he will be promoted to a better team for next season when a vacancy arises.

SESL needs more managers like Nathan, and if a lesson is learnt on playing such a weak defence with too much man marking, then perhaps the blowout rule has served its purpose. Without it, FOR would have lost 3 points which is what he expected to happen anyway.

Thanks all for the the very reasonable postings. It's a lesson that has been digested and will help For and my management moving forwards.

I said this on the blog, and I'll repeat it here. FOR should be commended for an excellent match vs. CLY immediately after the blowout in question. (CLY 1, FOR 0) So, after criticizing Nathan's tactics above, I feel compelled to compliment him here. Good job!

I think it should have been refunded.

I'm not sure you've ever met an appeal that you didn't like!