gonzo Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 After our defeat on Saturday, I've been thinking a lot. A number of people have said that we wouldn't have conceded the goals that we did, had the likes of Fonte been eligible to play. Is it time to axe the 'cup-tied' rule? Why was it introduced to start with? At the moment, this rule possibly encourages clubs to keep a bloated squad for a cup run, particularly if they sign players during the January window. Equally, I think it helps stagnate the market, as clubs may not sign a player on the basis they can't select him in cup matches. As well as stagnating the market, it also could potentially hurt clubs who need to offload players due to financial reasons, but can't shift players who are cup-tied. I mean, the same doesn't apply to league matches, so why should a player, who plays in the early rounds of the FA Cup for one club, be ineligible to play in later rounds for his new club when he moves in January? I think it's an interesting topic, especially with regards to the origins of this frankly daft rule. What does everybody else think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I'd agree. I'm sure it was done to stop teams buying players from sides who'd already gone out, in order to strengthen their sides as they themselves progressed. I feel given the no. of loans which are done these days, that it's players on anything other than a full season-long loan who should be precluded from taking part in Cup competitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Awaits MLG c-n-ping Wiki... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted 17 February, 2010 Author Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Also, that would have been at a time when you could buy players at any point in the season. From memory, the transfer windows are a fairly new addition to the game. I just think at a time when so many clubs are in financial difficulty, it would make sense for a number of reasons to scrap the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Before the transfer window I could see the reasoning behind it. But as there is still a long way to go in the FA Cup in January, I don't think the rule now needs to apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I would suggest that players who move from one club to another should be made to sit out one round ! This would eliminate the possibility of teams taking short term advantage of new signings in the cup but be more equitable over a longer period ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Keep it, or you will get teams signing players on loan just for a semi final or final. Its a rule in every cup comp so theres no chance it will be scrapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 You touched on another part of the problem - the Transter Window itself. The fact that clubs cannot freely sign players means that they have to carry bloated squads, just in case they have a bad case of injuries. The cup-tied rule merely increases the problem. Yes, there should be some rules in the transfer system. For example, a maximum squad size, so that clubs like Chelsea can't sign the opposition's star player just before they are about to play them. The majority of clubs are finding it extremely difficult to operate with the transfer window system, even though it was set up to stop bigger clubs signing players where and when they liked. Yes, it creates a different bit of interest during January, and at the end of the season, but instead of helping smaller clubs to compete, it actually weakens them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted 17 February, 2010 Author Share Posted 17 February, 2010 But loans, like permanent transfers, also have a window in which they can happen. The exception is emergency loans for goalkeepers, but these have to go through all kinds of stuff to be approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Doesn't it stop a club who does well in the cup bringing in a player on emergency loan in the latter stages just to enhance their chances of winning the cup? A better rule would be to drastically reduce the number of loan players a team can hold and partly abolish the cup tied rule for the FA Cup only, as it doesn't start in earnest until the transfer window opens in January anyway. Players who play in the 3rd or 4th rounds should still be ineligible to play for another team in rounds thereafter to prevent clubs from building a great squad to win the FA Cup which is unlikely these days but you never know a possible for the likes of Man City or Spurs. However, it would not prevent small teams from trying to improve their minimal chances of success. Trouble is our motivation to change is compromised by our recent experience than any desire to actually change the rules for the greater good IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Also, that would have been at a time when you could buy players at any point in the season. From memory, the transfer windows are a fairly new addition to the game. I just think at a time when so many clubs are in financial difficulty, it would make sense for a number of reasons to scrap the rule. Agree on all counts. Cup Tie'ing a player is now at odds with the transfer windows that have been implemented relatively recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted 17 February, 2010 Author Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Trouble is our motivation to change is compromised by our recent experience than any desire to actually change the rules for the greater good IMO. I disagree with this to be honest. Admittedly, it was our recent experience which prompted me to stop and think about this, but, having pondered it for a few days, I still feel that it would be to the benefit of clubs if this rule was scrapped. And don't forget, if this were to change in the future, it could work against us as well. We could face someone in the 5th round of the cup who had just recruited a player who had played for somebody else in rounds 1 and 2 who then scores a hattrick against us. I think overall, the 'cup-tied' rule needs to be scrapped if football keeps persevering with transfer windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I thought the transfer window itself to be a bad rule within a season of it being opened. It meant clubs had to carry bigger squads to allow of injuries, bans, etc... OK for richer clubs, bad for poorer ones. A ruling that was made to make league football more competitive, has actually had the opposite effect. If the transfer window was removed, the cup-tied ruling could conceivably remain. So my opinion has not been swayed by any misfortune of Saints. The subject has simply reared its head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Awaits MLG c-n-ping Wiki... I'll summarise in my own words.... It was introduced because the transfer window used to end in March. Yes, transfer windows aren't new they have been about for a long time, they just got shorter. March is the time of the quarter finals and the cup tied rule is to stop the last 8 teams in the cup buying players late on to aid the cup run. With the introduction of short January windows the cup tied rule is outdated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I'll summarise in my own words.... It was introduced because the transfer window used to end in March. Yes, transfer windows aren't new they have been about for a long time, they just got shorter. March is the time of the quarter finals and the cup tied rule is to stop the last 8 teams in the cup buying players late on to aid the cup run. With the introduction of short January windows the cup tied rule is outdated. Agreed, but the transfer window was so long, before they shortened it to just January and Pre-Season, that no-one referred to it as a window. At least, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I'd agree. I'm sure it was done to stop teams buying players from sides who'd already gone out, in order to strengthen their sides as they themselves progressed. I feel given the no. of loans which are done these days, that it's players on anything other than a full season-long loan who should be precluded from taking part in Cup competitions. Surely if a player is on a season long loan he is only ever going to play for a single club.:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Agreed, but the transfer window was so long, before they shortened it to just January and Pre-Season, that no-one referred to it as a window. At least, I don't think so. You're right, it was not referred to as a window until the present rules came in. Before that we had transfer deadline day, after which no further transfers were permitted until the end of the season. I can't remember exactly when deadline day used to be set, but I'm sure if I check back later someone will have enlightened us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I'll summarise in my own words.... It was introduced because the transfer window used to end in March. Yes, transfer windows aren't new they have been about for a long time, they just got shorter. March is the time of the quarter finals and the cup tied rule is to stop the last 8 teams in the cup buying players late on to aid the cup run. With the introduction of short January windows the cup tied rule is outdated. It used to be more of a non-transfer window between end March to June 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 3rd Thursday in in March until 1st of June iirc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 So, does anyone know when the transfer window, that we are all familiar with, was introduced..? Sorry to seem to hijack your thread Gonzo, but I think the present transfer window is part and parcel of the same stupid rulings that make players cup-tied. Besides, it gives your thread longevity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted 17 February, 2010 Author Share Posted 17 February, 2010 From memory, it was about 6 or 7 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 The ironic thing is that this doesnt affect Saints or Carlisle, they could get a couple of ringers in on loan from the prem and of course they wouldnt be cup tied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 So, does anyone know when the transfer window, that we are all familiar with, was introduced..? Sorry to seem to hijack your thread Gonzo, but I think the present transfer window is part and parcel of the same stupid rulings that make players cup-tied. Besides, it gives your thread longevity. I've never like the stupid two windows thing. Clubs in January are either paranoid they'll miss out on players and splash the cash big, worried they're going down and sign unneccessary players, or oppositely tentative, not buying anyone in case the financial market crashes between February and June and they can't get anyone of the wage bill. It played a part in our relegation from the Premiership if you ask me. In the past with one window from June until March, we were able to strengthen the bits of our team that needed strengthening as and when we wanted to, such as in '96 with Berkovic and Ostenstadt, and later with Pahars and Evans. With the introduction of the two window system, the team you had at the start of the season was the one you had to live with until January, and with our defence shockingly unstrengthend at the end of August 2004, we couldn't make the decision to sign someone when we needed him. With the old window system, we could've brought in that illusive defender and Jacobson and Davenport would have been names barely uttered by us, if at all. In addition to all that, you have the fact the newspapers can continually speculate, more excitement for the fans (a reason to watch SSN eagerly every day) and the money would also flow more freely between clubs. Ok, it's ok for us in the lower leagues to an extent, with the emergency loan window enabling us to bring in players as and when we need them, but I would much rather see a return to the old system. (...and yes I would see the irony in one of our players having a great early spell in the season and getting pilfered by a bigger club...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 The ironic thing is that this doesnt affect Saints or Carlisle, they could get a couple of ringers in on loan from the prem and of course they wouldnt be cup tied. That isn't ironic, nor would they be ringers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 It would be ironic because the cup tied rule doesnt apply here and they would be ringers if they were bought in just for the final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 It would be ironic because the cup tied rule doesnt apply here and they would be ringers if they were bought in just for the final. MLG's right - that's not irony. You've been spending too much time with John Motson I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 It would be ironic because the cup tied rule doesnt apply here and they would be ringers if they were bought in just for the final. That isn't irony. Nor would they be "ringers". Look both words up in a dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1Minus10 Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Loan players being able to play in the cup has been a bugbear of mine for years. Back in 2003, Watford had borrowed Chopra from Newcastle and he played against us in the semi final. Back then, you couldn't loan from another Prem side so we couldn't have loaned him in even if we'd wanted to. I'm fine with the Cup tied rule and also think all loan players shouldn't be allowed to play cup games either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 18 February, 2010 Share Posted 18 February, 2010 After our defeat on Saturday, I've been thinking a lot. A number of people have said that we wouldn't have conceded the goals that we did, had the likes of Fonte been eligible to play. Is it time to axe the 'cup-tied' rule? Why was it introduced to start with? At the moment, this rule possibly encourages clubs to keep a bloated squad for a cup run, particularly if they sign players during the January window. Equally, I think it helps stagnate the market, as clubs may not sign a player on the basis they can't select him in cup matches. As well as stagnating the market, it also could potentially hurt clubs who need to offload players due to financial reasons, but can't shift players who are cup-tied. I mean, the same doesn't apply to league matches, so why should a player, who plays in the early rounds of the FA Cup for one club, be ineligible to play in later rounds for his new club when he moves in January? I think it's an interesting topic, especially with regards to the origins of this frankly daft rule. What does everybody else think? The FA may not like going back on its (original stupid idea in the first place) rule, but how about a ban if his new club is drawn against the old one. Most unlikley to happen, but seen as fair - as currently with loan players not playing in fixtures against their own club ? No favouritism, if the " new club" wins he can return in the next round etc, It's no worse than him scoring a hat-trick against his old team in a League game and helping to get the new club promoted ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 18 February, 2010 Share Posted 18 February, 2010 Agreed, but the transfer window was so long, before they shortened it to just January and Pre-Season, that no-one referred to it as a window. At least, I don't think so. You are correct, the window is so termed as its regarded as an exception. When it was a "deadline" there was no window because transfers were permitted for the majority of the time and the end of the season was a natural break and thus logical to allow transfers again. The concept of a "window" is a small exception within a large block of something. The rest of the season is the "wall". Pre-"window" transfers were allowed for all but March-May (9 months) Post-"window" transfers are allowed May-August and January (5 months in 2 slots). Personally I think January is more of a transfer catflap, and FWIW I think the cup-tied rule should stay, it's about preventing people representing multiple teams in the same competition, nothing else. League transfers are allowed because that's the "daily job" and its insanity to prevent a player playing AT ALL until the following season, until he joins a new club. There's no knockout aspect to the league, which is the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 18 February, 2010 Share Posted 18 February, 2010 Surely if a player is on a season long loan he is only ever going to play for a single club.:confused: Not if he signs after he's already played for the original club, it's "season long" meaning for the rest of the season, not the whole of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 18 February, 2010 Share Posted 18 February, 2010 I would also point out that getting rid of the cup-tied rule would mean that Puncheon could have played in both legs of the JPT S Final for both teams, which is clearly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 18 February, 2010 Share Posted 18 February, 2010 I would also point out that getting rid of the cup-tied rule would mean that Puncheon could have played in both legs of the JPT S Final for both teams, which is clearly stupid. Not really. It happens in the league and will for Puncheon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 18 February, 2010 Share Posted 18 February, 2010 It just seems odd to me that you could be in a cup winning team whilst having been knocked out of the competition earlier with another??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 19 February, 2010 Share Posted 19 February, 2010 Not really. It happens in the league and will for Puncheon. It's stupid because the league is an ongoing competition with an end which defines when the transfer window re-opens, resetting player eligibility for the following season, whilst the cup is a set of elimination matches with the principle that once you lose as part of a club you're out. You obviously can't ban a player from playing in the league for the rest of the season or you may as well get rid of transfers mid-season altogether because they'd be useless. But you can sensibly ban a player from cups he's already played in because of the nature of the elimination format - once you've lost you're out of it, whether you play for someone else or not. This leaves a few scenarios : 1) In the cases where a player leaves a team who is still IN a Cup for one which is not, then they can't play further in the tournament anyway becasue their new club has no more Cup fixtures to play. 2) With something like the Puncheon case, he was still in the competition and signed for a club also still in the competition. a)That's the only time you can logically argue he shouldn't be cup-tied, because his team haven't been eliminated so he should still be eligible to play... b) but with Puncheon this season in the JPT this is moot because it's obvious that he shouldn't be able to play both for sides in a two-legged tie. 3) Which leaves one scenario undetailed - had Puncheon signed for, say, Carlisle from MK rather than Saints, should he be allowed to play versus Leeds ? a) It's dubious that he should be allowed to continue in a tournament where he MIGHT play his old team who he's already represented (for MK in the Final had they beaten Saints) b) and a case could be made that he could only play for Carlisle either when MK were eliminated from the competition or until MK were eliminated (depending on your argument) but it's preposterous that his eligibility for the competition should depend on his old team's performance when he no longer has any effect on their results. I like the cup-tie rule, it's straightforward and there's little scope for confusion. Unless you're Manny Omoyinmi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon_UK Posted 19 February, 2010 Share Posted 19 February, 2010 Anyone who plays in a cup competition is entitled to a winners medal, as Such players can only play in a cup competition for any one club in any one season, as far as I am concerned every one knows the rules at the start of the season, if we sign a player who has already played in that competition this season then you know that when you sign them. Yes maybe if Fonte, and seabourne had played we might have defenced better agsint Pompey, but thats the rules, its not going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now