Tevez to Man Utd

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:28 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....

Spaced · Post by **Spaced** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:40 pm

Its the 2 year loan deal with an option of a further 3 afterwards...who would agree to that unless something was dodgy...

Tombwfc · Post by **Tombwfc** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:46 pm

Thats shocking if true and they get away with it (and of course they will). Because all clubs love to send their best players (that they own perfectly legally, wink wink) on loan for two seasons.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:38 pm

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.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:22 pm

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.

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?

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:26 pm

Apparently he was only "on loan" at Spam for 12 months after which they had the option to buy him for £40m....allegedley

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:03 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
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.
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?

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.

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?

Salford Trotter · Post by **Salford Trotter** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:55 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

Nozza · Post by **Nozza** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:15 am

Git long loans are nothing new. Sinsia Mihialivic (sp) was on loan at Lazio for yonks before they bought him

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:39 pm

TBH it's too late for the FA and co to be looking into this now. They should've put a stop to it twelve months ago when Westam 'signed' the two dodgy players in the first place.

Mich Caine · Post by **Mich Caine** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:54 pm

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

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.

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.

Tombwfc · Post by **Tombwfc** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:14 pm

It's ok, because if we're in the shit come January, we can just pay a few backhanders and hire Ronaldinhio, Kaka and Adriano to turn out for us for a few months.

fozzy · Post by **fozzy** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:16 pm

No matter what you think about the whole affair, I found this rather amusing...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jg5HsG7AN1Y

James B · Post by **James B** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:57 pm

Mich Caine wrote:Bury were kicked out of the FA cup - a punishment on the results rather than financial, so how can this be different?

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 argument

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:41 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 896911.stm

Yet more fun and games in the Man United/West Ham/Kia Joorabchian triangle...

bobby5 · Post by **bobby5** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:26 am

Evil cesspit, the whole affair.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:18 am

James B wrote:
Mich Caine wrote:Bury were kicked out of the FA cup - a punishment on the results rather than financial, so how can this be different?
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 argument

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.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:51 am

communistworkethic wrote:
James B wrote:
Mich Caine wrote:Bury were kicked out of the FA cup - a punishment on the results rather than financial, so how can this be different?
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 argument
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.

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.

Connect with your social network account

Tevez to Man Utd

Who is online