Derby Blue Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I just checked the rules on that and he is actually cup tied, even if he isn't used for the match. The fact that he is named as a sub means he is now cup tied, so I guess that's one less thing to worry about. I stand corrected, thanks for checking.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
lraC Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I stand corrected, thanks for checking. No worries, I didn't know for sure and it was on a couple of fan blogs. A Scottish club fell foul of the rule and were fined.
Neal Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Anyone got any bright ideas as to why we've signed Cairney permanently and then stuck him out on the right wing again? Because Bowyer simply will not drop the boy wonder Jason Lowe.
davulsukur Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 City are an absolute p*ss take. Their second string is ridiculously strong. I guess that's how you go about winning 4 trophies tho.
Tyrone Shoelaces Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Not sure who plays or who on bench ... no Dunny though. Wow, that's a surprise. Maybe he's " injured ". He was touting for a new contract in yesterday's paper !
Gumbi Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 According to the rules, an unused sub isn't cup tied
allan Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Rhodes is NOT cup-tied unless he actually plays - see rule 15(g) of the 2013/14 competition rules. (wHYY DO SOME PEOPLE PERSIST IN PUTTING MISLEADING RUBBISH ON THIS SITE?)
Salgado Is A Hero Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Which club seriously wouldn't buy Rhodes because he was cup-tied for the FA Cup? Why are we even discussing it? Gestede is playing because against the best team in the country, having a player more suited to holding the ball up is the wiser choice. It's why Kazim was playing up top against Arsenal, albeit alongside Rhodes.
John Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Not bad discussion on BT Sport between David James and Mcmanaman.
Oz Rover Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Which club seriously wouldn't buy Rhodes because he was cup-tied for the FA Cup? Why are we even discussing it? This. So much.
Claytons Left Boot Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 #mcfc team: Pantilimon, Boyata, Nastasic, Clichy, Fernandinho, Javi Garcia, Silva, Negredo, Dzeko. #mcfc subs: Kompany, Zabaleta, Kolarov, Yaya Toure, Jesus Navas, Lopes. Bloody hell, thought I'd just woken up in Valencia or Seville. I always thought Man City were an English team. The knuckle dragging neanderthals that follow 'Citah' won't be able to pronounce any of those names.
Backroom Tom Posted January 4, 2014 Backroom Posted January 4, 2014 We are in for a long long 90 minutes - Michael Owen is commentating
Bundesburn Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Not bad discussion on BT Sport between David James and Mcmanaman. Was just gonna say that. The whole coverage is quite impressive, certainly better than the vapid analysis by most other channels. Can certainly see why BT believe in it so much.
G Somerset Rover Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Precisely - no club will give a flying @#/? if Rhodes is cup tied. If we were talking the champions league then it would be another matter. It must be tactical or GB just doesn't want him getting whacked around by Lescott & co.
jonv Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Was just gonna say that. The whole coverage is quite impressive, certainly better than the vapid analysis by most other channels. Can certainly see why BT believe in it so much. It's brilliant how much focus they've given Rovers - not just as a team but exploring the surrounding areas as well. As a fan whose never got to Ewood Park (yet), I'm watching wide eyed. I do hope we can put in an honest performance today, and if the gods are on side, maybe dare to nick something. Heart says 2-1 Mind dares not say
Guest Norbert Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I'm actually not that bothered Rhodes is on the bench. Keeps him a bit fresh for the next league game.
Stuart Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Good lad, Harry (I'm guessing that's your lad ES) Shame the other mascot supports City. Massive queue outside the ticket office, btw. Glad I collected mine before Christmas. Eek! Shame City have put a weakened side out...!
RibbleValleyRover Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Not buying into this "if he played and Rovers won he would be worth less" theory, it's clearly a tactical decision by Bowyer to put a more physical body up front against a superior team. Personally I would have played him as he is our best player and only consistent goalscorer. Going all defensive, keeping it tight then hopefully sneak a goal late on isn't going to work against City.
Stuart Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I'm going for 'keeping our powder dry' as the reason for Rhodes being benched. Still, at least we'll get to look at how we line up with Lowe IN and and Rhodes out.
Pelio Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Looking at the lineup, I think we need an outlet - someone with some pace to take the pressure off. Personally I would have included King to run at them, but hopefully thats something we can do during the game. Would like to see Rochina get some minutes today too....
Bundesburn Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Rudy renamed Gushedhead by Michael Owen. Interesting.
Backroom Tom Posted January 4, 2014 Backroom Posted January 4, 2014 After that shot just then we now know the answer to a long asked question Paul Robinson ate all the pies
OJRovers Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Why is the block next to the darwen end closed in the riverside?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.