Wanyama Banned For 5 Matches

[angelman]

We've had plenty of these opportunities already thanks to Wanyama's red cards. I'd be inclined to think he's been told they won't have a detrimental impact on his value or he'd be doing a lot less of that kind of thing - I think he's weakened his reputation in many ways over the past 9 months but buying clubs tend not to think "he could do that with us too" for some reason. That kind of recruitment flaw at other clubs is one of the reasons we were able to get to where we are from where we were.

 

I look at another player in demand and the way that he and his club are treating it. Somewhat different from us and Vic/Sadio/et al.

 

Not that I like it (apart from it happening to Wet Spam), are the noises coming from Payet's agent. He is 8 months through a 5 year contract and already making noises that he should be on twice what he is on and has started negotiations on changing it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35531360 And really, the statement that they released (http://www.whufc.com/News/Articles/2016/February/9-February/West-Ham-United-Statement) would tend to suggest otherwise. How many clubs/businesses would look to change the terms of a contract 8 months into a 5 year one??

[colman1860]

Ludicrously harsh decision, but in line with a certain points reduction a few years back. Someone doesn't like us at the FA

 

The tinfoil hats are out in force...

[Professor]

Unlikely I think that an Appeal Panel would find that Clattenburg had acted unreasonably in showing a red card. Only the TV replay showed contact wasn't made but that was luck, not judgement, as the tackle certainly looked reckless without concern as to whether the player would be injured. RK's response that Vic needs to learn from his mistakes makes sense to me.

[saintadam]

Hes done a great job for us, previous seasons and also this season. The red cards has not been on reckless challenges especially not the latest one. 2 of them come from a ref that totally hates saints. Big Vic, hope he signs a new contract and keeps being our midfield tank for many years to come.

[BARCELONASAINT]

I know VW is not flavour of the month with many on here and some are very quick to say we would be better off without him (and i'm first to admitt i have previously said the same myself)....however on his day he is a top enforcer that has had many opposition midfields running scared. To say we won't miss him is silly, he is a class enforcer....I like Romeu and hope he fills VW boots...without the sendings off!

[Manuel]

This could be a good opportunity for him to sharpen up. Fits nicely into Vic's shoes and looks better infront of goal.

[stevegrant]

Hes done a great job for us, previous seasons and also this season. The red cards has not been on reckless challenges especially not the latest one. 2 of them come from a ref that totally hates saints. Big Vic, hope he signs a new contract and keeps being our midfield tank for many years to come.

All three red cards this season were entirely justified. Not necessarily "deserved", in the case of the one on Saturday, but entire justified, i.e. you can see why the referee would make that decision.

 

Not sure which player you've been watching, he's pretty much only bothered performing in a handful of games against Arsenal and Man United.

 

Tanks are slow and ponderous, and show difficulty in changing direction quickly enough to react to things going on around it. Sounds a perfect description...

[The9]

Maybe not at the appeal itself but the clubs view of the incident and likelihood of an appeal is quite apparent and relevant to this discussion as to why the club are not appealing.....presumably because Koeman doesn't have a problem with the decision.

 

It's still irrelevant to the likelihood of getting the decision overturned, which is the only criterion the club will be using to determine if they should appeal.

[The9]

Unlikely I think that an Appeal Panel would find that Clattenburg had acted unreasonably in showing a red card. Only the TV replay showed contact wasn't made but that was luck, not judgement, as the tackle certainly looked reckless without concern as to whether the player would be injured. RK's response that Vic needs to learn from his mistakes makes sense to me.

 

I agree with the first sentence, but there was no concern whether the player would be injured because the player who was injured was nowhere near the challenge when it was made. Wanyama missed the ball because he misjudged where he needed to slide in order to be able to swing at it to clear it, had he made contact with the ball Payet just would have tripped over his prone body.

[supersonic]

Fully justified, serves him right for being such a mindless pr*ck

[The9]

I look at another player in demand and the way that he and his club are treating it. Somewhat different from us and Vic/Sadio/et al.

 

Not that I like it (apart from it happening to Wet Spam), are the noises coming from Payet's agent. He is 8 months through a 5 year contract and already making noises that he should be on twice what he is on and has started negotiations on changing it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35531360 And really, the statement that they released (http://www.whufc.com/News/Articles/2016/February/9-February/West-Ham-United-Statement) would tend to suggest otherwise. How many clubs/businesses would look to change the terms of a contract 8 months into a 5 year one??

 

Any competent club that wants to keep hold of a key player when everyone knows wages are about to rocket, I'd say.

 

Completely understandable that West Ham wouldn't want him to leave and that they'd offer him more money, especially with new tv deal money. And as much as we all know players love bigger wages, if it's only about a few weeks' wages here and there over a couple of years then they might not want the hassle of relocating. It's when there's a huge difference in wages players will move. West Ham are trying to close the gap between existing deal and hypothetical Man U deal in the hope he likes it where he is.

[bpsaint]

Fully justified, serves him right for being such a mindless pr*ck

 

Starting to think I was the only one who thought this way. He lost the ball and went pile driving into Payet in a manner that was completely unnecessary. At the time from the Northam I thought it was a red, although replays suggest otherwise, but the ref never had the luxury of replays, and if Payet's foot had been planted Vic would have caused some serious damage.

 

Seems people are viewing the incident through rose tinted specs and would rather place the blame on Clattenburg or the West Ham players than admit Victor was a mindless idiot that steamed into that challenge with all the finesse of a fat Sunday league player.

 

Justified red card that Vic should never have given Clattenburg the opportunity to show in the first place.

Edited 9 February, 2016 by bpsaint
autocorrect fail

[angelman]

Any competent club that wants to keep hold of a key player when everyone knows wages are about to rocket, I'd say.

 

Completely understandable that West Ham wouldn't want him to leave and that they'd offer him more money, especially with new tv deal money. And as much as we all know players love bigger wages, if it's only about a few weeks' wages here and there over a couple of years then they might not want the hassle of relocating. It's when there's a huge difference in wages players will move. West Ham are trying to close the gap between existing deal and hypothetical Man U deal in the hope he likes it where he is.

 

Nah. Don't buy that. He signed the 5 year contract 7 months ago when everyone knew what was coming next year (as deal was signed Jan?Feb 2015). No, what's happened is he has done better than he thought he would, or rather, attracted attention that was not anticipated and is no longer content with the contract that he agreed to and that has 4½ years to run.

[Batman]

Nah. Don't buy that. He signed the 5 year contract 7 months ago when everyone knew what was coming next year (as deal was signed Jan?Feb 2015). No, what's happened is he has done better than he thought he would, or rather, attracted attention that was not anticipated and is no longer content with the contract that he agreed to and that has 4½ years to run.

 

Agreed. No one forced him to sign the other month.

[DT]

Starting to think I was the only one who thought this way. He lost the ball and went pile driving into Payet in a manner that was completely unnecessary. At the time from the Northam I thought it was a red, although replays suggest otherwise, but the ref never had the luxury of replays, and if Payet's foot had been planted Vic would have caused some serious damage.

 

Seems people are viewing the incident through rose tinted specs and would rather place the blame on Clattenburg or the West Ham players than admit Victor was a mindless idiot that steamed into that challenge with all the finesse of a fat Sunday league player.

 

Justified red card that Vic should never have given Clattenburg the opportunity to show in the first place.

 

It was inept, not malicious. I really think it was a determined lunge having fouled up his possession, and he wanted to make amends with a good firm tackle. The fact that he executed it pretty badly deserved a yellow and a talking to if it was a decent ref, not one who gets turned on by big moment incidents in games. But a 5 games ban seems way over the top to me, almost as if they are justifying what they now think was harsh. Guess I'm on my own with this one.

[John B]

It was inept, not malicious. I really think it was a determined lunge having fouled up his possession, and he wanted to make amends with a good firm tackle. The fact that he executed it pretty badly deserved a yellow and a talking to if it was a decent ref, not one who gets turned on by big moment incidents in games. But a 5 games ban seems way over the top to me, almost as if they are justifying what they now think was harsh. Guess I'm on my own with this one.

 

Three red cards in one season surely deserves at least a five game ban cannot remember how many he has had whilst playing for Saints

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Fully justified, serves him right for being such a mindless pr*ck

 

Why are you celebrating us missing the services of a very good and effective player?

[Window Cleaner]

Three red cards in one season surely deserves at least a five game ban cannot remember how many he has had whilst playing for Saints

 

don't think he's had many other red cards actually, couple of suspensions for accumulated yellow cards though. Perhaps before this season Morgan and Victor shared out the iffy tackles between them and thus red cards were less likely.

[Gingeletiss]

77 appearances, 3 goals, 22 yellow cards, 3 red cards. That's 1 yellow card every 3.5 matches, I'd say that was not a good stat.

[CB Saint]

Had Vic made a decent connection with Payet, then there would have been a good chance of a serious injury - whether there was intent or recklessness is immaterial - Refs will always stamp down on that type of challenge. Given the entire stadium said "ooph" when he made the tackle, gives some indication of what it looked like without slo mo and I am not surprised a red was shown.

 

To suggest some refs hate us and sent him off to spite us is just laughable.

 

With regards to the ban - he only got a three match ban for the tackle.He got an additional tariff for being a repeat offender.

[The9]

Had Vic made a decent connection with Payet, then there would have been a good chance of a serious injury - whether there was intent or recklessness is immaterial - Refs will always stamp down on that type of challenge. Given the entire stadium said "ooph" when he made the tackle, gives some indication of what it looked like without slo mo and I am not surprised a red was shown.

 

To suggest some refs hate us and sent him off to spite us is just laughable.

 

With regards to the ban - he only got a three match ban for the tackle.He got an additional tariff for being a repeat offender.

 

"Had Vic made a decent connection with Payet" he'd have had to have made a completely different challenge rather than one attempting to play the ball which was a good yard away from Payet when Wanyama went for it. The challenge he made had no chance of causing injury to anyone, Payet wasn't injured and continued to play having gone off purely for appearances' sake, and any temporary injury caused was from him throwing himself upside-down on the floor, as Wanyama's contact with him did no such thing.

 

It was a poorly-timed lunge at the ball but there was no intent to collect the player and that only happened because he missed the ball, which I'm in agreement was probably in over-eagerness to win it back having mis-controlled it moments earlier.

 

The rest of it, completely agree. The "refs hate us" thing is childish and nonsense, and the ban stuff is accurate.

[The9]

Three red cards in one season surely deserves at least a five game ban cannot remember how many he has had whilst playing for Saints

 

Those three.

[The9]

Any competent club that wants to keep hold of a key player when everyone knows wages are about to rocket, I'd say.

 

Completely understandable that West Ham wouldn't want him to leave and that they'd offer him more money, especially with new tv deal money. And as much as we all know players love bigger wages, if it's only about a few weeks' wages here and there over a couple of years then they might not want the hassle of relocating. It's when there's a huge difference in wages players will move. West Ham are trying to close the gap between existing deal and hypothetical Man U deal in the hope he likes it where he is.

 

Nah. Don't buy that. He signed the 5 year contract 7 months ago when everyone knew what was coming next year (as deal was signed Jan?Feb 2015). No, what's happened is he has done better than he thought he would, or rather, attracted attention that was not anticipated and is no longer content with the contract that he agreed to and that has 4½ years to run.

 

It's exactly the same thing. West Ham have publicly stated they initiated contact over a new deal. They might be spinning it because they want to keep him and they know fans won't like it if they think the player is trying to leave. But either way, the club wants to keep him and are trying to do so by offering him more money, which his performances have entitled him to ask for. Just as West Ham could in theory tell him he has a contract and they're the terms, but won't because that would be a massive disincentive to him staying or continuing to perform at that level for them.

[Chez]

77 appearances, 3 goals, 22 yellow cards, 3 red cards. That's 1 yellow card every 3.5 matches, I'd say that was not a good stat.

 

Obviously red cards hurt a lot, and to a degree yellows too, but **** me I bet you would scream to high heaven if he wasn't showing comittment, competing, making tackles and maybe even taking yellows for the team.

 

He is a tad clumsy, but we have plenty of players who don't get close enough to make tackles or are happy to jockey all game. I can live with all those yellows.

[Andy Durman]

The biggest problem I have with referees is their inconsistency.

[Lets B Avenue]

If Clattenburg had been reffing last night's Cup replay it would have ended 7-7.

 

And I don't mean goals.

[tajjuk]

If that tackle is a "horror tackle" then Byram's was attempted murder.

 

It's debatable whether that was even a yellow, I doubt it would have been if it had been in the first few minutes of the game.

 

It was from the side, one footed, no studs over the ball and not jumping in, just a late albeit a bit rash sliding tackle that pretty much missed everything.

 

Club should appeal because it's a poor decision.

 

Luckily we have a very able replacement and aside Chelsea we don't really have to play anyone that would need the extra quality wanyama brings.

[Ohio Saint]

Big Vic only seems to care too much in games where he needs to showcase his talents for the big clubs these days. We need show faith in next years team and forget about him. He's off soon.

[Leicestersaint]

If that tackle is a "horror tackle" then Byram's was attempted murder.

 

It's debatable whether that was even a yellow, I doubt it would have been if it had been in the first few minutes of the game.

 

It was from the side, one footed, no studs over the ball and not jumping in, just a late albeit a bit rash sliding tackle that pretty much missed everything.

 

Club should appeal because it's a poor decision.

 

Luckily we have a very able replacement and aside Chelsea we don't really have to play anyone that would need the extra quality wanyama brings.

 

Agreed.

[SaintBobby]

As long as Romeu doesn't get injured or suspended I'm not concerned.

 

This.

[Mowgli]

Big Vic only seems to care too much in games where he needs to showcase his talents for the big clubs these days. We need show faith in next years team and forget about him. He's off soon.

Sky Sports currently analysing Big Vic's contribution to Saints and labelling him a liability!!

[david in sweden]

OK ...one down and four to go .......

[Lighthouse]

http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/story/referee-shot-dead-by-player-he-red-carded-in-argentina-021616

 

Let's hope he never takes things this far.

[Shroppie]

http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/story/referee-shot-dead-by-player-he-red-carded-in-argentina-021616

 

Let's hope he never takes things this far.

I guess you'd get an extra game suspended for that.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

I guess you'd get an extra game suspended for that.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

Unless you played for Man Utd.

[Shroppie]

Unless you played for Man Utd.

Yep. Stern telling off.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk