Smarmy Hack

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

silverfox

silverfox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
15,635
Reaction score
2,571
Location
Next door
At it again...........

The Football Association will this morning begin an investigation into the circumstances around the transfer of Matthew Spring from Luton Town to Charlton Athletic, on the basis of possible third party interference from Sheffield United.

Don't hold your breath.

It has long been Sheffield United's lot to be painted as victims of grave injustice, so do not expect this latest twist to make a ripple in that smug little pond, or to appear anywhere beyond these pages. Even so, this is important; or it would be if football cared for anything more than grand gestures to the gallery.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...teds-cosy-deal-cut-Spring-wrong.html?ITO=1490
 

He sounds a lovely fellow, cant help thinking him and West ham deserve each other.
 
I can't think of how he can apply this to United.

If it was indeed the case, then it isn't the party acting as the third influence that faces sanctions. Kia Bobchicken isn't in trouble with the FA... he is the third party. It's the club that allows the third party... West Ham or in this situation, Luton.

That is of course, ignoring the fact that when dealing with loans in the Championship, this is common practice. West Ham weren't in the Championship, they were in the Premiership.

Third party agreements are against Premiership rules.

Is it just me? :)
 
I thought Spring was cup tied anyway? I find it hard to believe that poorly-researched opinion posing as fact can pass for professional journalism in this day and age.
 
matth said:
I thought Spring was cup tied anyway? I find it hard to believe that poorly-researched opinion posing as fact can pass for professional journalism in this day and age.
Click to expand...

He played in the league cup for us, but not the FA cup.
 
If Fatty Samuels continues this stuff he will be found out by other journalists and just be looked upon as a sh** stirrer, let him continue his one man assault on SUFC. he'll get found out eventually!
 
Given that Charlton didn't register him for the competition, whether us, his Mrs or his newsagent didn't want him to play... He couldn't anyway!
 

Oh well looks like a change of paper wont stop his personal vendetta.

The fat bastard!
 
I hope fatty keeps on spouting !

McCabe will have his eyes on him and sort him out when the time is reight !
 
beightonblade said:
McCabe will have his eyes on him and sort him out when the time is reight !
Click to expand...

I think in the majority of instances he'll just laugh at the bearded fool... However, if he has slipped up sufficiently one day, he may feel the need to take him to task :).
 
I love how them hammer cunts are trying to get involved to out-shadow there wrong-doing. Idiots.
 
Charltons website is fine it certainly gets the message across to that twat Martin Samuel.
 
Some more look...

Charlton have admitted striking a deal with Sheffield United to omit Matthew Spring from their FA Cup fourth-round tie against Sheffield United.

The south London club sent a letter to Bramall Lane this month confirming Spring would not play if the two sides met in the competition.

With this in writing, United agreed to end Spring’s season-long loan early and send him back to Luton, from where he could be sold for a nominal fee to Charlton.

On the face of it, the deal suited everyone. Spring played rarely at United, Charlton wanted him to bolster their fight against relegation and hard-up Luton were grateful for any cash.

But the Football Association will look more closely into the agreement between Charlton and United to see whether it broke their rules on third-party interference.

Spring signed for Charlton on January 12, after the fourth-round draw. But United had to beat Leyton Orient in a postponed third round tie and Charlton had to win at Norwich in a replay if they were to meet.

Luton needed United’s agreement to end the loan. Charlton’s plight at the bottom of the Championship meant they wanted to push the transfer through.

A Charlton statement said: ‘Charlton agreed that, if United released Spring from his loan, thereby allowing the transfer to The Valley to go through, manager Phil Parkinson would not field the player in any FA Cup fourth-round tie between the two clubs.’

United beat Charlton on Saturday and play Hull in the fifth round.
Click to expand...
 
Samuels' undeniable bias is there for all to see, but the article at least raises one point - Sheff Utd made a huge deal of a contractural technicality in order to avoid relegation. But similar types of deals - verbal or otherwise - seem to be rife up and down the league, particularly with loan players (which Tevez was, technically, was he not?)

Seems strange that Sheff Utd don't like the 'oral cuddle' arrangement Kia had with Duxbury after the original enquiry and the £5.5m fine, when they are happy to engage in similar such agreements when it suits?

"Fairness in Football" eh?
 
sendô WHU said:
Seems strange that Sheff Utd don't like the 'oral cuddle' arrangement Kia had with Duxbury after the original enquiry and the £5.5m fine, when they are happy to engage in similar such agreements when it suits?

"Fairness in Football" eh?
Click to expand...

It's not "the cuddle", it's the lying about it.
 
sendô WHU said:
Samuels' undeniable bias is there for all to see, but the article at least raises one point - Sheff Utd made a huge deal of a contractural technicality in order to avoid relegation. But similar types of deals - verbal or otherwise - seem to be rife up and down the league, particularly with loan players (which Tevez was, technically, was he not?)

Seems strange that Sheff Utd don't like the 'oral cuddle' arrangement Kia had with Duxbury after the original enquiry and the £5.5m fine, when they are happy to engage in similar such agreements when it suits?

"Fairness in Football" eh?
Click to expand...

For a seemingly intelligent man, you seem to have quite some difficulty in grasping the issues here.

West Ham kept secret an agreement which would have meant that the PL would not have allowed Tevéz's registration. They were found out, and punished - whether the punishment was fair, or fit the crime, is another point. After this, they then lied again, and tried to unilaterally cancel an agreement that was between two parties. They should have stopped playing Tevéz if there was any doubt as to his elligability - which there clearly was - but no, they carried on blithely adding him to the team sheet. Whether this was because they thought that they were untouchable with their pals in the PL and the FA sticking up for them is a matter of debate and of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that Tevéz was still inelligable, as the agreement that caused the trouble in the first place had not been officially broken. Ergo, Tevéz should never have played. He did, and indeed scored the winning goal in the last match of the season that guaranteed West Ham's suvival and condemned Sheffield United - who had by no means had a good season, but had at least played by the rules - to the drop.

Do you see? West Ham gained an unfair advantage, and were in dereliction of their duty of fair play to the other teams in the PL. This is the point.
 

sendô WHU said:
Samuels' undeniable bias is there for all to see, but the article at least raises one point - Sheff Utd made a huge deal of a contractural technicality in order to avoid relegation. But similar types of deals - verbal or otherwise - seem to be rife up and down the league, particularly with loan players (which Tevez was, technically, was he not?)

Seems strange that Sheff Utd don't like the 'oral cuddle' arrangement Kia had with Duxbury after the original enquiry and the £5.5m fine, when they are happy to engage in similar such agreements when it suits?

"Fairness in Football" eh?
Click to expand...

Hi Sendo,

I really really have nothing against West Ham Fans they had nothing to do with this, however, its the double lying by those running the club at the time thats the problem, and those judging it seen to agree with this view. If you look at the thread you will see that Charlton have said they have no problem with the way the deal was done. You are trying to compare chalk and cheese, just try to imagine the boot on the other foot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Why would Premier League punish Forest for being big club again?
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
14K
CityInPeace
C
Revolution
A look back at all the FA Cup Semi Finals we've ever played in
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
FMBlade1
FMBlade1
tyke1889
Egan and Berge:The Athletic interview
Replies
2
Views
2K
tyke1889
tyke1889
DiggerBlade
Joe Riley ( loan )
Replies
7
Views
2K
larkymasher
L
UnitedBlade
Baxter Drug Hearing on July 10
6 7 8
Replies
224
Views
20K
oaklandrdblade
oaklandrdblade

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom