Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

blades or hammers, who will win the pointless arbitration of doom?

who will win?

  • Total voters
    28
Ummm parry was the first premier league cheif apparentley and is answering questions on when the rules in question were first established. As of yet he has not answered antyhing about the tevez/macherino deals.

Once again a bit of poor reporting. liverpool fc have nothing to do with this tribunal at this time.

edit: and since when are we a big club??? i swear at the start of the season we were a tiny little club who were out of thier depth.


dave
 
tommers said:
really? so he made up the bit on your official site about kabba's contract having a clause that he couldn't play against you? and the bit on the watford official site about the same thing? powerful guy.
Click to expand...
1) Has anyone here actually heard the Premier League say that is a breach of the rules? Nothing happened to Man Utd about it, in fact, did anyone know this was "not allowed" before Tevezgate and West Ham bumming journos started beating around the bush to find "similar" incidents to get Wet Spam off the hook and came up with Howard/Everton? For all we know there is nothing wrong with it as clubs have always done that and have so THIS season.

2) The fat cunt in the Times says we breached rule U18 (the same one as West Ham) but that would be impossible! As it would be Watford that was in breach of the rule, not us! So if there is a rule being broken, it's either not being broken by Sheff Utd, or it's a different rule, but then why would fatty boom batty Samuel say it was the same rule? I'll tell you why - because people are starting to take us seriously and people are scared we will actually win and that makes me think we will win!
 
cyberrose, i ahve a question for you. when we signed tev and masher, why were all the newspapers up in arms about it cos we're such a little club. why have we had so much negative press this year? IMHO the only new source that has remained consistently neutral or pleasant towards us has been the bbc, every other paper has been out to get us since the moment we signed those lads.
 
The bottom line is that Eggy is a football man. He used to be on the board of UEFA for smeg's sake. He knows his stuff. So when he says he is certain nothing more will come of it, I believe him, and not a bunch of northern gobshite 'journalists' and bitter fans.
 
mind you, it's nice to know that u75 thinks i'm more likely to win this than sheff utd!
 
bluestreak said:
cyberrose, i ahve a question for you. when we signed tev and masher, why were all the newspapers up in arms about it cos we're such a little club. why have we had so much negative press this year? IMHO the only new source that has remained consistently neutral or pleasant towards us has been the bbc, every other paper has been out to get us since the moment we signed those lads.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we've always been the 'nice little club' that everyone 'has a soft spot for' :rolleyes: . I much prefer this new status of the club everyone loves to hate. Might actually win something now :cool:
 
kained&able said:
Ummm parry was the first premier league cheif apparentley and is answering questions on when the rules in question were first established. As of yet he has not answered antyhing about the tevez/macherino deals.

Once again a bit of poor reporting. liverpool fc have nothing to do with this tribunal at this time.
Click to expand...
Where'd ya hear that?

edit: and since when are we a big club??? i swear at the start of the season we were a tiny little club who were out of thier depth.


dave
Click to expand...
Hmmmm...maybe when you started spending more money than Chelsea?
 
http://soccerlens.com/did-sheffield-united-violate-rule-u18/2077/

decent article. it uses facts. i do agree though that it would probbley be watford done under u 18. you under b13 which is the one we got fined more for!
The whole you have to act in good faith to all the other clubs type one.

and just for old times sake from scudamore's letter to all prem clubs. "West Ham United as Respondents were the only party entitled to appeal. This is a deliberate construct of our Rules. Any Club that has faced a properly convened Independent Commission having had “their day in court” cannot be “re-tried” by the Board or group of aggrieved Clubs."

http://jlmd.blogspot.com/2007/05/scudamores-letter.html

so how the fuck is this tribunal thingy even legal.

ioh and while im at it.

Given the complexities around this, we would ask you to step back from the detail and consider the matter in more general terms:
1. Tevez has been properly registered to play for West Ham United since 31 August 2006. The Board, under our Rules, is charged with the authority to determine this.
2. He continues to be registered with West Ham United.
3. This is a case without precedent and certainly cannot be compared with Clubs who have played unregistered players or players ineligible through suspension.
4. On 26 April West Ham United admitted to breaches of Rules B13 and U18 – for which they have been fined in accordance with our Rules.
5. The offending third party agreement has been terminated by West Ham United and therefore they are not continuing to be in breach.






dave
 
CyberRose said:
Hmmmm...maybe when you started spending more money than Chelsea?
Click to expand...
And when Green Street came out and everybody thought it would be cool to be a West Ham supporter cos that Hobbit did as well!
 
CyberRose said:
1) Has anyone here actually heard the Premier League say that is a breach of the rules? Nothing happened to Man Utd about it, in fact, did anyone know this was "not allowed" before Tevezgate and West Ham bumming journos started beating around the bush to find "similar" incidents to get Wet Spam off the hook and came up with Howard/Everton? For all we know there is nothing wrong with it as clubs have always done that and have so THIS season.
Click to expand...

Premier League said:
A Premier League spokesman told the News of the World: "The current rule makes clear that once a move becomes permanent there can be no contractual terms to prevent a player playing against his old club.

"The statements surrounding the Steve Kabba transfer were brought to our attention late on Friday and early next week we will look at our documentation and ask our two clubs to submit any further documents, or agreements, for scrutiny.
Click to expand...



2) The fat cunt in the Times says we breached rule U18 (the same one as West Ham) but that would be impossible! As it would be Watford that was in breach of the rule, not us! So if there is a rule being broken, it's either not being broken by Sheff Utd, or it's a different rule, but then why would fatty boom batty Samuel say it was the same rule? I'll tell you why - because people are starting to take us seriously and people are scared we will actually win and that makes me think we will win!
Click to expand...

You may be right that it would be watford that had to answer rather than you lot. However, the original inquiry did make a point of saying that they would have punished Kia as well as us but they didn't have any jurisdiction over him.
 
kained&able said:
http://soccerlens.com/did-sheffield-united-violate-rule-u18/2077/

decent article. it uses facts. i do agree though that it would probbley be watford done under u 18. you under b13 which is the one we got fined more for!
The whole you have to act in good faith to all the other clubs type one.
dave
Click to expand...
B13 means nothing. Besides, somebody show me where it says you can't have this feature in the contract...(plus like you say, the contract details were on our website and Watford's website, so I'm pretty sure they would have been shown to the Premier League too if they are no big secret, unlike some other decietful club I could mention...)
 
kained&able said:
http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,16368,1808_2419162,00.html



7 million on upson
1 mill on davernport (undisclosed)
1.5 quashie
5 on boa morte (undisclosed)
7 parker
blanco loan
neil free.

thats what 24 million???

chelsea.

shevchenko 30million.

oooops beaten with one player.


dave
Click to expand...

dave - you haven't added in the 70k a week that we don't give lucas neill, and the 75k a week that we didn't offer darren bent.
 
Chelsea have spent over 300million since abramovich came to power. They weren't exactly short of a bob or two before that. We had to make do with signing other teams' casts offs, unwanted players and ne'er do wells, with a used car salesman in charge and a complete cunt as chairman. The 7.5 m signing of ashton was a biggie though.

Lame troll.
 
There was a thread on KUMB where they compiled our record signings. The overall conclusion was that our big money signings in the past had been duds. Can't find it now though
 
CyberRose said:
Don Hutchinson was our record signing at the time!!
Click to expand...

we had him twice. he was one of those players that played well for other clubs - but utter pony for us. we should have learned the first time round.
 
RenegadeDog said:
More money than Chelsea?

Now I know you're on a windup!!!
Click to expand...

Since the season ended chelsea has only signed 3 players on free transfers - can WH say they haven't been trying to throw millions around to get players?
 
ZAMB said:
Since the season ended chelsea has only signed 3 players on free transfers - can WH say they haven't been trying to throw millions around to get players?
Click to expand...

Erm, if we're talking about 'trying' to splash the cash, haven't Chelsea been 'trying' to buy Benni McCarthy? Cost Blackburn a few million, cost Chelsea quite a bit more than that I'd have said.
 
mattie said:
Erm, if we're talking about 'trying' to splash the cash, haven't Chelsea been 'trying' to buy Benni McCarthy? Cost Blackburn a few million, cost Chelsea quite a bit more than that I'd have said.
Click to expand...

Do you know this as a fact? On what information are you basing your claim - the same media that is spreading transfer rumours comcerning the premiership every day????

The FACT is that they have signed 3 new players on free transfers.
 
ZAMB said:
Do you know this as a fact? On what information are you basing your claim - the same media that is spreading transfer rumours comcerning the premiership every day????

The FACT is that they have signed 3 new players on free transfers.
Click to expand...

The FACT is West Ham have signed one. The fact is McCarthy and Maureen have both been ringing each others' praises in the press. MCCarthy: "If a club like Chelsea comes looking for you, you must seriously consider the opportunity....If Mourinho were to sign me again, it would be because he knows exactly what he's getting." Maureen: "He is the kind of striker every coach wants, and I am no exception. I’ve worked with him successfully in the past at FC Porto. I do like Benni." Nothing going on there? Righto.
 
God, Spanish teams always have that written into contracts because Real and Barca loan out about 10 players each from their B teams!
 
apparentley we are the only league in the world that has that rule. even the football league doesn't. but mr g force if peeps are on loan then the parent club can insist they don't play against them its only when the deal becomes premenent that its not allowed

and cyber it was on your websie and the watford website. one of the articles i linked to yesterday quoted them both the watford one using the phrase ineligible.

prem peeps quoted as saying they wouldn't have sanctioned the transfer if they had known.

as for journos welcome to our world for the entire of last season. no one reported anything right at least your only complain can be about the timing.


dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terraform
Match of the Day waiting
2
Replies
32
Views
450
WouldBe
WouldBe
VWT2GEL
Borussia Dortmund or simila
Replies
0
Views
77
VWT2GEL
VWT2GEL
W
What's the most WTF football moment you have witnessed?
Replies
7
Views
322
Lotte
L
P
Champion Hill Unsafe, or do the Directors simply not care.
Replies
22
Views
499
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
L
The fall of Manchester City -what's gone wrong?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
182
Views
7K
Wilf
Wilf
Back
Top Bottom