Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hypocrites at it again

If that rule applies in this case then it's Charlton who have broken it, not Sheffield United :)
 
JTG said:
I don't necessarily take issue with much of that but in this specific instance I really don't see how it's anything more than different competitions having different rules (no idea if this would be out of order in the Prem or not anyway).

It'd be like Burnley kicking up a fuss about their away goal not counting until 120 minutes, just because some competitions would have had them through on 90 mins
Click to expand...


The Burnley thing is damned bad luck by them, and away goals should count double as they do it virtually all other comps, but it'd only be comparable, if Spurs had been mouthing off about being knocked out in similar circumstances, and trying to railroad other clubs/leagues/Parliament into changing the outcome because they weren't good enough to go through in 90 mins.

And I believe 3rd party influence is allowed in the Championship but if you're going to do it, don't make an issue of other clubs doing it, especially as the rules were hazy at best then (have since been totally revamped) and because you weren't good enough to secure your league position over the rest of the season.
 
hmm you might have a point there.

lordy 3ed part influence isn't alolowed in any FA affiliated, uefa or fifa iffilaited competition.

Meaning its not allowed in sunday league let alone championship.

I think jtg is right though its charlton that have fucked up and should be hung drawn and quartered for this outrage.

Which is a pity.

way goals should count double
Click to expand...

Don't ever use this phrase its wrong! One away goal counts as double. Otherwise a 0-0 & a 3-2 would have the away team winning 6-4. Which is incorrect and bollocks. The ammount of times I have had to explain this to my dad that this isn't the case has made me reliase that this is a shit way to phrase things and people need shooting



dave
 
Ah, but in this case Sheffield United are facilitators of the rule breaking. They knowingly encouraged the rule breaking to occur rather than reporting the perpetrators, as any decent, fair, justice-minded team would have done. I mean, allowing stuff like that to happen is part of the cancer that is killing football. They're as bad as the Premier League, Roman Abramovich, and Chris Kamara all at once.
 
I reckon conspiricy to break rule 18bis is the best bet.

Conspiricy to murder carries the same weight as murder i thinl so therefore sheffield united are just as culpable.




dabe
 
Look at this I have one foray into the Middle East forum and while my back's turned all you fuckers get up to this mischief!

Spring was on loan at Luton for a season, but there are often clauses in the loan deal (as was in this case) that should a club want to buy that player in the January transfer window, the loan will be terminated. Charlton wanted to buy Spring in this January transfer window, therefore, under the terms of the loan deal between Sheff Utd and Luton, Spring's loan term at Luton was terminated and he was sold to Charlton. Luton have no current arrangement with Spring.

And of course, under Championship rules, clubs are legally allowed to write into transfer deals an agreement that prevents the player from playing for his former club :p

So, mystery solved!
 
CyberRose said:
And of course, under Championship rules, clubs are legally allowed to write into transfer deals an agreement that prevents the player from playing for his former club :p

So, mystery solved!
Click to expand...

Your sure bout that bit. I thought the FA decided to change that.

Technically wouldn't his formr club be luton rather then the blades, whose agreement woud have had to have been terminated before the deal could take place.

Surely it would have gone.

Owned by luton
Loaned to sheffield united
Loan deal terminated by Luton with permission of united.
Owned by Charlton.

Charlton and sheffield united shouldnt be talking to each other at all in the process.


dave
 
kained&able said:
Your sure bout that bit. I thought the FA decided to change that.


dave
Click to expand...
Well that's not up to the FA is it? It's up to the Football League, just as it is up to the Premier League to decide on these kind of issues (which is what it did following Tevezgate, or at least will do once the loan terms finish with Tevez and Mascherano and Man Utd and Liverpool :rolleyes:)
 
The problem is probably that Luton didnt insist on the right of recall for Spring, so they had to persuade Sheffield Utd to release him in order to sell him to Charlton.

That said, Charlton are rubbish.
 
Yeah i think so, but i don't see how luton are allowed to tell charlton that thier player can't play against certain teams. Especially ones that arent themselves(luton).

Suely be like pompey telling spurs that defoe isnt allowed to play against arsneal this season.

I do think that sheffiled united are kia in this rtaher then west ham annoyingly though. But like i said conspiricy thats gotta be worth a fine or a points deduction since the rule change.


dave
 
Ok I've got confused. Swap "Luton" for "Sheff Utd" in my first post! :o

Spring was on loan to US from Luton. Charlton wanted to buy him, so Luton cancelled his loan with us and sold him to Charlton. I have no idea why he is ineligible to play unless he is cup tied, which I'm not sure he is
 
kained&able said:
I do think that sheffiled united are kia in this rtaher then west ham annoyingly though. But like i said conspiricy thats gotta be worth a fine or a points deduction since the rule change.
Click to expand...
The most hilarious and outrageous outcome I can think of is as follows:

The Football League look into things and decide to dock us enough points to be relegated to Div 1 because of these "rule breaks". But then, following the Premier League investigation into West Ham, they decide to reinstate us in the Premier League! :D
 
CyberRose said:
Ok I've got confused. Swap "Luton" for "Sheff Utd" in my first post! :o

Spring was on loan to US from Luton. Charlton wanted to buy him, so Luton cancelled his loan with us and sold him to Charlton. I have no idea why he is ineligible to play unless he is cup tied, which I'm not sure he is
Click to expand...

He's not.

You should sue them for going along with it. Actually, whoever plays in Spring's place is playing there illegally, you should definitely sue them for that.

It is your duty as the game's moral protectors after all.
 
Yorkshire Post said:
Ironically, the Blades lost midfielder Matthew Spring to Charlton earlier this month due to their block on new contracts.

Spring would have spent the rest of the season on loan with the Blades but had a get-out clause in the event of being offered a permanent deal.

The former Leeds United and Luton Town player will line up against the Blades tomorrow having scored last week for Charlton against Sheffield Wednesday at Hillsborough.
Click to expand...
Looks like we'll just have to wait til tomorrow and see!
 
we don't need to wait we have allready decided that sheffield united and charlton should be chucked out of every competition he has played and is going to play in. On acocunt of everyone being cheating bastards.

I will ring round every judge untill i find one that agrees(probabley a wednesday fan) with my position and despite no evidence he will decide they are guility of something.


dave
 
yeah but thats not what happend quite is it as united werent the parent team.

Sheffield united might well be allowed to say to luton "fine we will give up matty springs registration but he can't play against us for you". Thats an agreement between the two teams and probabley allowed maybe.(although who knows as its a loan and im not sure if thast changes anything but whatever it doesn't really matter)

BUT your saying he can't play in the team that Luton sell him too. Which is silly. As under fifa/fa laws a third party isn't alowed to have influence over a player.

First parties are spring, luton & charlton.

Your third party. I don' think that can be disputed. And you are having an influence on the selection policy of a club. That can't be disputed.

It will be an intresting test case much like ours was. We got a world recored fine.

We shall see what happens to you and everyone else. I reckon charlton by agreeing to the clause are guilty of the same infraction we were & i would be intrested to see what you and luton(poor luton:( ) could be charged with as well.

dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Gary Lineker's in trouble again
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Lotte
L
5
Friday Night Football at Imperial Field
Replies
0
Views
108
59robbery
5
5
Friday Night Football at Imperial Field
Replies
0
Views
102
59robbery
5
P
Can Nottingham Forest do it?
2 3 4
Replies
106
Views
3K
May Kasahara
May Kasahara
Libertad
Another Sullivan Shitshow - West Ham United 25/26
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
tommers
tommers
Back
Top Bottom