Sheff Utds bit arbiatritititition...

Nozza · Post by **Nozza** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:58 pm

fozzy wrote:He wasn't/isn't an illegally signed player.

It's all 'ifs and buts thought, isn't it? If we hadn't signed Tevez, then there might not have been (alleged) dressing room unrest, and we might have had a better season overall.

He is owned by a 3rd party. That is the illegal part.

Are you really such a thick mincer in real life?

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:59 pm

Nozza wrote:White pudding is superior.

once you go black you never go back.

Nozza · Post by **Nozza** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:02 pm

Verbal wrote:
Nozza wrote:White pudding is superior.
once you go black you never go back.

Like them both. Prefer white.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:04 pm

yeah they're both nice. Damn I'm hungry now but have an empty kitchen

bettyrasta · Post by **bettyrasta** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:31 pm

I just wish that clubs had shown a bit more guts in standing together about what was obviously a mess and an injustice. The whole thing would probably then be over with by now. I know Middlesbro suggested support because of the circumstances in which they were docked 3 points and ended up being relegated but if other clubs such as ours could have signalled their disagreement with the decision this would have undermined the West Ham supporting cliques authority. Instead self-interest prevailed and Sheffield United fight on because of their own self-interest. Good luck to them anyway

fozzy · Post by **fozzy** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:37 pm

Nozza wrote:
fozzy wrote:He wasn't/isn't an illegally signed player.

It's all 'ifs and buts thought, isn't it? If we hadn't signed Tevez, then there might not have been (alleged) dressing room unrest, and we might have had a better season overall.
He is owned by a 3rd party. That is the illegal part.

Are you really such a thick mincer in real life?

*Holds head in hands*

TEVEZ. IS. NOT. OWNED. BY. A. THIRD. PARTY.

Got that, Geordie?

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:57 pm

fozzy wrote:
Nozza wrote:
fozzy wrote:He wasn't/isn't an illegally signed player.

It's all 'ifs and buts thought, isn't it? If we hadn't signed Tevez, then there might not have been (alleged) dressing room unrest, and we might have had a better season overall.
He is owned by a 3rd party. That is the illegal part.

Are you really such a thick mincer in real life?
*Holds head in hands*

TEVEZ. IS. NOT. OWNED. BY. A. THIRD. PARTY.

Got that, Geordie?

yeah but it's never been that. it's been that a 3rd party could have an affecting influence on him

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:39 am

fozzy wrote:
Nozza wrote:
fozzy wrote:He wasn't/isn't an illegally signed player.

It's all 'ifs and buts thought, isn't it? If we hadn't signed Tevez, then there might not have been (alleged) dressing room unrest, and we might have had a better season overall.
He is owned by a 3rd party. That is the illegal part.

Are you really such a thick mincer in real life?
*Holds head in hands*

TEVEZ. IS. NOT. OWNED. BY. A. THIRD. PARTY.

Got that, Geordie?

Isn't he?

I apologise, but I've been sitting exams for a few weeks so I've not been keeping up.

Was Mascherano owned by a third party?

If you could outline (what you perceive as) the truth of the situation for someone who is interested but ignorant then I would be grateful.

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
James B wrote:
Dr.Karl wrote:If Tevez weren't playing they wouldn't have won those games, that is almost given.
it could quite easily be argued that had they never signed the argies in the first place there wouldn't have been the dressing room unrest that followed, they had started the season quite well before then

football's not that simple
It could be argued, and I'm sure some would, but it is not a good argument. West Ham broke the rules and so gained an unfair advantage (or at least what they perceived to be one). The question is whether the punishment was suitable, whether it was fair to Sheffield United (and others) who may have been disadvantaged. United clearly stand to lose millions because of the ludicrously light penalty. They could have a case.

The difficulty I have with all of this is that whilst you and others have outlined the apparent lack of fairness in the outcome, it's a non sequitur to say that this unfairness suggests that Sheffield United have a case.

As Fozzy pointed out, all the clubs signed a contract at the start of the season agreeing to let the Premier League enforce its rules and decide on appropriate punishments for infringements. I just don't understand what the basis of the claim is. Are Sheff Utd suggesting that the Premier League has breached a term of their contract with them (and other clubs) by making (or delegating) the decision in a way not permitted by the contract? Or is Sheff Utd's claim directly against West Ham for a breach of a contract that every club has with each other, agreeing to play by the rules?

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:56 am

fozzy wrote:He wasn't/isn't an illegally signed player.

It's all 'ifs and buts thought, isn't it? If we hadn't signed Tevez, then there might not have been (alleged) dressing room unrest, and we might have had a better season overall.

so why then did you get fined £5.5 million quid and have to resign him having proven the contract with a third party had been cancelled?? Did they just fine you because of a whim?

Facts not a strong point for you are they?

fozzy · Post by **fozzy** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:43 pm

They are, actually.

The problem with Tevez's legal registration was that there was clause stating that Kia (or company) could influence his movement.

He has been eligible to play all season. There has never been a problem with his registration.

Abdoulaye's Twin · Post by **Abdoulaye's Twin** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:54 pm

fozzy wrote:They are, actually.

The problem with Tevez's legal registration was that there was clause stating that Kia (or company) could influence his movement.

He has been eligible to play all season. There has never been a problem with his registration.

"The problem with his registration" and "There has never been a problem with his registration"

Contradictory?

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:33 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

As Fozzy pointed out, all the clubs signed a contract at the start of the season agreeing to let the Premier League enforce its rules and decide on appropriate punishments for infringements. I just don't understand what the basis of the claim is. Are Sheff Utd suggesting that the Premier League has breached a term of their contract with them (and other clubs) by making (or delegating) the decision in a way not permitted by the contract? Or is Sheff Utd's claim directly against West Ham for a breach of a contract that every club has with each other, agreeing to play by the rules?

A lot would depend on the terms of this contract (about which I know nothing). Are there any conditions that go with the authority or is the Premier League totally unfettered as to disposition of cases? Clearly there is an appeal mechanism - the arbitration tribunal - that Sheffield is following. Perhaps there is recourse to the courts beyond that. All I was saying is that United have been damaged by the decision, which was inconsistent with past practice and that the PL said they would have made a different decision in January. However, I have no idea what rights United may have given up in their contract with the PL.

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army · Post by **Soldier_Of_The_White_Army** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:38 pm

Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:
fozzy wrote:They are, actually.

The problem with Tevez's legal registration was that there was clause stating that Kia (or company) could influence his movement.

He has been eligible to play all season. There has never been a problem with his registration.
"The problem with his registration" and "There has never been a problem with his registration"

Contradictory?

PWNED!!

fozzy · Post by **fozzy** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:48 pm

Damn it! You know what I meant anyway...

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:50 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sout ... 747441.stm

piece of cake this now Sharpe's involved

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:07 pm

hisroyalgingerness wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sout ... 747441.stm

piece of cake this now Sharpe's involved

makes me think they deserve to stay down now, shite actor that did his best to ruin LOTR.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:09 pm

"Paging Mr Dave Whelan... can a Mr Dave Whelan please return Sheffield United's calls... please, Mr Dave Whelan, you were making a big enough noise about it when it was YOUR arse on the block..."

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:24 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:"Paging Mr Dave Whelan... can a Mr Dave Whelan please return Sheffield United's calls... please, Mr Dave Whelan, you were making a big enough noise about it when it was YOUR arse on the block..."

Ah well, er, cough, er, as circumstances had it, it worked out okay. I mean, er, Sheffield have all our sympathies etc, but it's er, a bit water under the old Pier now isn't it, ha ha. But we do stand behind them in theory of course and wishn them every bit of luck in their er, quest, as you will. Now then, about this Koumas character......

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:46 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:"Paging Mr Dave Whelan... can a Mr Dave Whelan please return Sheffield United's calls... please, Mr Dave Whelan, you were making a big enough noise about it when it was YOUR arse on the block..."
Ah well, er, cough, er, as circumstances had it, it worked out okay. I mean, er, Wigan have all our sympathies etc, but it's er, a bit water under the old Pier now isn't it, ha ha. But we do stand behind them in theory of course and wishn them every bit of luck in their er, quest, as you will. Now then, about this Koumas character......

Can I just reiterate that I despise Mr Dave Whelan and yet again he has shown himself to be an utter arse of the highest water? Thanks.

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:56 pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 923673.ece

and steve gibson announces his moral support

Connect with your social network account

Sheff Utds bit arbiatritititition...

Who is online