| Very clever from Wolves 10:12 - Dec 31 with 6553 views | blueprint |
Cunha gets a 2 game ban following the appeal. He only misses 1 league game as he is then banned for the FA Cup match. Absolute joke. [Post edited 31 Dec 2024 10:12]
|  | | |  |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:12 - Dec 31 with 4662 views | FrimleyBlue |
He'll be sold before the end of the window anyway |  |
| |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:13 - Dec 31 with 4669 views | _clive_baker_ |
Hope Forest absolutely batter them. |  | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:15 - Dec 31 with 4564 views | tonybied |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:12 - Dec 31 by FrimleyBlue |
He'll be sold before the end of the window anyway |
Will he? Isn't it a similar situation to Delap for us? They know they would struggle to replace him in January and he will be worth much more to them if he helps to keep them up. They would be mad to let him move on before the end of the season, unless they get offered a mind-blowing fee for him. |  | | |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 10:17 - Dec 31 with 4527 views | cressi |
The FA are hopeless 2 games for a assault on a club official should have been 5 minimum whilst the banned the bloke at Spurs for 7 for saying something he shouldn't have done. |  | | |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 10:23 - Dec 31 with 4398 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 10:17 - Dec 31 by cressi |
The FA are hopeless 2 games for a assault on a club official should have been 5 minimum whilst the banned the bloke at Spurs for 7 for saying something he shouldn't have done. |
Its over with, lets concentrate on Ipswich rather than get all flustered about whether we agree with someone elses ban. |  |
| |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:23 - Dec 31 with 4398 views | Exiled2Surrey |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:15 - Dec 31 by tonybied |
Will he? Isn't it a similar situation to Delap for us? They know they would struggle to replace him in January and he will be worth much more to them if he helps to keep them up. They would be mad to let him move on before the end of the season, unless they get offered a mind-blowing fee for him. |
I think that Wolves have a bit more form for selling than we have | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:23 - Dec 31 with 4394 views | GeoffSentence |
Looking forward to seeing the written reasons because on the face of it they have got away with it ridiculously lightly |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:28 - Dec 31 with 4305 views | PhilTWTD |
They didn't appeal, he admitted the charge. Assume the delay was assembling the panel over Christmas. |  | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:29 - Dec 31 with 4279 views | tonybied |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:23 - Dec 31 by Exiled2Surrey |
I think that Wolves have a bit more form for selling than we have |
Maybe, but they haven't been so close to the drop zone previously when cashing in on players. Cunha will most likely make the difference for them if he stays this year, barring them signing someone else of the same level. Surely, survival would be worth more than any fee they would receive now over a fee in the summer. | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:30 - Dec 31 with 4255 views | Simonds92 |
That is an absolute joke. Intentionally elbowing a member of staff in the back of the head, seemingly unprovoked, 2 games. Kudus, pushes someone in the face, 5 games. | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:42 - Dec 31 with 4110 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:29 - Dec 31 by tonybied |
Maybe, but they haven't been so close to the drop zone previously when cashing in on players. Cunha will most likely make the difference for them if he stays this year, barring them signing someone else of the same level. Surely, survival would be worth more than any fee they would receive now over a fee in the summer. |
He doesn't come across though as guy who'd happily stay if the big clubs come calling, and an upset cunha could be poison for wolves. | |
| |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:46 - Dec 31 with 4034 views | tonybied |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:42 - Dec 31 by FrimleyBlue |
He doesn't come across though as guy who'd happily stay if the big clubs come calling, and an upset cunha could be poison for wolves. |
Fingers crossed that the outcome is they don't accept a bid for him and he throws his toys out the pram after the window closes. That way they "lose him", don't get any fee and any chance to get in a replacement for him. Best of both worlds for us! | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:53 - Dec 31 with 3977 views | pointofblue |
That's utterly pathetic. Should have been far more than two games. And he gets to miss a FA Cup game where he wouldn't have played anyway - and he would have probably been injured for Forest.
Good to know what the going rate is for elbowing someone in the back of the head, though. | |
| |
| The FA is bent on 10:54 - Dec 31 with 3965 views | redrickstuhaart |
How can a plain red card offence carry less than a red card ban, despite being perpetrated on an innocent bystander? | | | |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 11:00 - Dec 31 with 3898 views | Horsham |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 10:23 - Dec 31 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Its over with, lets concentrate on Ipswich rather than get all flustered about whether we agree with someone elses ban. |
I don’t think we or the club should. Moving on is all very honourable but we’re in a massive scrap to stay in this league and we should fight for every advantage and fight any advantage our rivals have. Being nice in this league and with the finances at stake is not going to get us anywhere. This is big business. |  | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 11:03 - Dec 31 with 3877 views | Exiled2Surrey |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:46 - Dec 31 by tonybied |
Fingers crossed that the outcome is they don't accept a bid for him and he throws his toys out the pram after the window closes. That way they "lose him", don't get any fee and any chance to get in a replacement for him. Best of both worlds for us! |
The reason that the club are where they are is because the owners have lost interest and started to sell their best assets and have not reinvested - so they are not really playing the long game
The owners could try to justify selling in this case as they would raise a significant sum to reinvest in the broader squad
I suspect that while that might look good business on the surface, who would they be able to attract as a replacement? Someone who is desperate to work under Vitor Pereira post new manager bounce? | | | |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 11:06 - Dec 31 with 3843 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 11:00 - Dec 31 by Horsham |
I don’t think we or the club should. Moving on is all very honourable but we’re in a massive scrap to stay in this league and we should fight for every advantage and fight any advantage our rivals have. Being nice in this league and with the finances at stake is not going to get us anywhere. This is big business. |
We should be making a massive fuss- purely for the purpose of standing up for what is right int he game rather than old boys networks and corruption.
The message this sends to youth and amateur football is extraoardinary. Elbowing a bystander in the back of the head after a game, is not going to get you in any trouble. In fact its less bad than a single mistimed tackle. Its as if the FA only considered the glasses bit (as most of the media seems to have done). | | | |
| The FA is bent on 11:09 - Dec 31 with 3793 views | cooperd5 |
| The FA is bent on 10:54 - Dec 31 by redrickstuhaart |
How can a plain red card offence carry less than a red card ban, despite being perpetrated on an innocent bystander? |
That's what I'm struggling to understand. He does that to another player and it's RC 3 match ban. |  | | |
| The FA is bent on 11:10 - Dec 31 with 3774 views | Trequartista |
| The FA is bent on 11:09 - Dec 31 by cooperd5 |
That's what I'm struggling to understand. He does that to another player and it's RC 3 match ban. |
It seems to stem for being charged for "Improper Conduct" when surely it was Violent Conduct? |  |
| |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 11:12 - Dec 31 with 3747 views | Blue_In_Boston |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 10:17 - Dec 31 by cressi |
The FA are hopeless 2 games for a assault on a club official should have been 5 minimum whilst the banned the bloke at Spurs for 7 for saying something he shouldn't have done. |
Comparing apples and pears. Racism is always punished heavily (and should be). | | | |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 11:15 - Dec 31 with 3704 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 11:12 - Dec 31 by Blue_In_Boston |
Comparing apples and pears. Racism is always punished heavily (and should be). |
Kudus incident is a better comparison. Dealt with correctly on the day. Red card. Increased to 5 for open hand in someone's face. As opposed to an elbow in the back of the head without warning. After the match. On a non player.
It is inexplicably inconsistent and once again raises serious questions about the professionalism and integrity of the FA | | | |
| The FA is bent on 11:19 - Dec 31 with 3647 views | FrimleyBlue |
| The FA is bent on 11:10 - Dec 31 by Trequartista |
It seems to stem for being charged for "Improper Conduct" when surely it was Violent Conduct? |
Was the elbow even part of it? we've seen it, but all the footage (main) we've seen of it shows the removal of glasses... have the fa ballsed it up because they are dealing only with the removal of glasses which would be improper conduct as apposed to violent. | |
| |
| The FA is bent on 11:25 - Dec 31 with 3606 views | CrayonKing |
| The FA is bent on 11:19 - Dec 31 by FrimleyBlue |
Was the elbow even part of it? we've seen it, but all the footage (main) we've seen of it shows the removal of glasses... have the fa ballsed it up because they are dealing only with the removal of glasses which would be improper conduct as apposed to violent. |
I think this is exactly it. They only seem to be considering the glasses part because that's what got the most attention.
I thought the rumoured 5 games was lenient. 2 is an absolute joke. But if they don't even charge him with the correct offence then it makes a perverse kind of sense. The FA is not fit for purpose. |  | | |
| The FA is bent on 11:55 - Dec 31 with 3420 views | stonojnr |
| The FA is bent on 11:19 - Dec 31 by FrimleyBlue |
Was the elbow even part of it? we've seen it, but all the footage (main) we've seen of it shows the removal of glasses... have the fa ballsed it up because they are dealing only with the removal of glasses which would be improper conduct as apposed to violent. |
I'd like to think the FA weren't that dumb or incompetent...on the other hand it's the FA. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
