Tevez to Man Utd
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32381
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hli ... n&channel=&
Going to United on loan???? for two years????.....nothing bent going on there then....nothing to see here - move on....
Going to United on loan???? for two years????.....nothing bent going on there then....nothing to see here - move on....
You can only think that with the shammers not being done for the tevez/mascherano affair, a big can of worms has been open by this. If Tevez does end up going to Utd on an 'extended loan' I can only see a dark cloud hanging over the prem next year.
"Young people, nowadays, imagine money is everything."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Absolutely, but from where all parties concerned in the Tevez episode are concerned, they'll just point towards the precedent that was set by Mascherano moving to Liverpool in an identical deal. What I want to know is this - Does ownership of a footballer have to rest with a football club? I know that a player's registration does, right down to Pub League level, but if a player strikes up an agreement whereby he get's paid a shitload up front, perhaps more than he could otherwise expect from a club, to be owned by an individual for a period of time, and loaned out to whoever, at considerable risk to his then owner, then that, for me is nowt other than a free market economy coming into play and has feck-all to do with the FA, unless they have specifically stated in advance, via their own set of rules, that it's not acceptable?Verbal wrote:You can only think that with the shammers not being done for the tevez/mascherano affair, a big can of worms has been open by this. If Tevez does end up going to Utd on an 'extended loan' I can only see a dark cloud hanging over the prem next year.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32381
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7404
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:08 pm
- Location: in your wife's dreams
- Contact:
it comes back to that 3rd party rule. The "owner" presumably has some control over the player, whereas it should be solely the club in control.Bruce Rioja wrote:Absolutely, but from where all parties concerned in the Tevez episode are concerned, they'll just point towards the precedent that was set by Mascherano moving to Liverpool in an identical deal. What I want to know is this - Does ownership of a footballer have to rest with a football club? I know that a player's registration does, right down to Pub League level, but if a player strikes up an agreement whereby he get's paid a shitload up front, perhaps more than he could otherwise expect from a club, to be owned by an individual for a period of time, and loaned out to whoever, at considerable risk to his then owner, then that, for me is nowt other than a free market economy coming into play and has feck-all to do with the FA, unless they have specifically stated in advance, via their own set of rules, that it's not acceptable?Verbal wrote:You can only think that with the shammers not being done for the tevez/mascherano affair, a big can of worms has been open by this. If Tevez does end up going to Utd on an 'extended loan' I can only see a dark cloud hanging over the prem next year.
The whole things stinks and no club should be having anything to do with these players, otherwise the this kind of shite will continue.
Odds of manu getting points deducted if this all goes wonky?
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:57 am
I often read this WHU board and if there are any views that may cast doubt on the legality of the WHU position re Tevez then the Mods remove them immediately. Ask any spammer privately and he tell ya that they have got away with the biggest scandal in modern day football. If they are found out (I hope so) what happens to all the big-time charlies they've signed on ridiculous contracts?
http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 10572
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: Up above the streets and houses
The FA is a disgrace, infact the FA annoys me so much. Crappy England appointments, paying ridiculous wages to England manager's, and then decisions like this. Jesus Christ, what a crumby organisation.Salford Trotter wrote:I often read this WHU board and if there are any views that may cast doubt on the legality of the WHU position re Tevez then the Mods remove them immediately. Ask any spammer privately and he tell ya that they have got away with the biggest scandal in modern day football. If they are found out (I hope so) what happens to all the big-time charlies they've signed on ridiculous contracts?
http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
I was reading comments on forums and on teletext of fans from London saying Sheff Utd had 38 games to stay up, they weren't good enough, get over it. Do people really believe that? How on earth can a team play an illegible player who kept them up single handedly, scoring lots of vital goals and not get a punishment in terms of results - i.e. a points deduction? Bury were kicked out of the FA cup - a punishment on the results rather than financial, so how can this be different?
I know Trevor Brooking is behind this decision.
It really winds me up. I don't blame West Ham, I blame the FA.
It is doing my head in that decisions like this are not fair.
No matter what you think about the whole affair, I found this rather amusing...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jg5HsG7AN1Y
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jg5HsG7AN1Y
bury couldn't have been given such a large fine, or they probably wouldn't exist beyond it, you have to understand each punishment will fit the offending club so comparisons in this case don't make for a good argumentMich Caine wrote:Bury were kicked out of the FA cup - a punishment on the results rather than financial, so how can this be different?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 896911.stm
Yet more fun and games in the Man United/West Ham/Kia Joorabchian triangle...
Yet more fun and games in the Man United/West Ham/Kia Joorabchian triangle...
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7404
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:08 pm
- Location: in your wife's dreams
- Contact:
no but they could've been fined relative to their size. a fine of say £200k would probably have been the same to them as £5m to wham.James B wrote:bury couldn't have been given such a large fine, or they probably wouldn't exist beyond it, you have to understand each punishment will fit the offending club so comparisons in this case don't make for a good argumentMich Caine wrote:Bury were kicked out of the FA cup - a punishment on the results rather than financial, so how can this be different?
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely
kevin nolan is so fat, that when he sits around the house he sits around the house
kevin nolan is so fat, that when he sits around the house he sits around the house
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28628
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Theory fine, number a bit high Commie: £200k would put them out of business. They might just about make £20k. And I'm not taking the piss out of our narky neighbours' financial plight - it's like kicking a cripple - just saying that if they got a bill for £200,000 they'd disappear.communistworkethic wrote:no but they could've been fined relative to their size. a fine of say £200k would probably have been the same to them as £5m to wham.James B wrote:bury couldn't have been given such a large fine, or they probably wouldn't exist beyond it, you have to understand each punishment will fit the offending club so comparisons in this case don't make for a good argumentMich Caine wrote:Bury were kicked out of the FA cup - a punishment on the results rather than financial, so how can this be different?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests