I agree his argument is poor, I just think this "Samuels only says what he says because he is a WHU fan and biased" is wrong. Otherwise, he wouldn't say they should have been relegated.
Martin Samuel - The Debate
- Thread starter Sothall_Blade
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
I agree his argument is poor, I just think this "Samuels only says what he says because he is a WHU fan and biased" is wrong. Otherwise, he wouldn't say they should have been relegated.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
It's like him saying "I totally agree with you, but you're wrong"
His point about West ham deserving to be relegated has been entirely clouded by his pretty much unfounded argument.
The other issue is that We all know that there were gentleman's agreements when players were sold to teams in the same league, but apparently were the only team that he chooses to discredit. Why? Because we stuck our head above the parapet and challenged the Premier League.
I think if any other club but west ham had been involved he wouldn't have questioned our actions. That's the sad part
I'll be interested when Ched gets released and if we sign him back on whether he then comes at us on the offensive again. I'm confident that he will. Yet, ched will have served his time and he has been punished. There are also other footballers who've served time for crimes violence, even causing death... Let's wait and see. Part of me wants us to sign ched just to see Samuels reaction.
His argument isn't contradictory. The argument is that "if justice were done WHU would have been relegated; however the PL rules are a crock of shit so justice wasn't done, but as all PL were complict in those rules, they should not go crying to the Courts when the rules bite them: those who live by the sword, die by the sword".
As I say, the weakness of his argument is that even with the shitty PL rules, United were done wrong, but his argument has put on a moral basis; to him its like me and you agreeing to have a knife fight and me reporting you to the police because you won the fight and I got stabbed.
JJ Sefton
Live, Laugh, Love
Did they?
I dunno. He says it was on the clubs' websites. Kabba was transferred in Jan 07 if he want to try and dind it.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
his argument may not be contradictory as such, but he chooses two entirely different scenarios to compare and use in his argument. He accepts that the west ham verdict was correct, therefore giving credit to the PL for doing their job... Yet he chooses to then pick on something which was entirely irrelevant. There was no third party involvement in the kabba deal. So no wrong doing.
And where was he when Zoopla demanded that Anelka must be fired from west Brom...
JJ Sefton
Live, Laugh, Love
I ask in all seriousness. If there wasn't, I'd like United to issue a statement to the effect to shut this fat fucker up once and for all.
If he is right that United and Watford had the deal he says they had, there was 3rd party involvement, albeit very minor compared to the WHU case.
He doesn't accept that the PL verdict was correct in the WHU case. He thinks they should have been relegated.
The fact that United don't issue a statement may tell it's own story.....
georgebernardshaw
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 14,963
- Reaction score
- 24,775
I do hope that he won't forget to mention that West Ham were in the Sunday broadsheets because their Board had "lent" over £1 million to an organization that could best be described as dodgy - funnily enough, after the news appeared on the tinterpipe, the loan was paid back rather quickly.
I found this
http://m.watfordobserver.co.uk/search/1491972.Why_did_Kabba_not_make_cut_for_Blades_clash_/
It looks very much like there was a verbal agreement that Kabba couldn't play but nothing in the written contract (persuambly as the clubs knew the PL would not accept that).
Stupdily both clubs then put on their website that Kabba was contractually barred from playing in the game in April and then started backtracking when they realised what they had said.
The evidence does seem pretty strong that there was a nod and a wink that Kabba wouldn't play and hence there was a 3rd party involveent rule breach. It then seems that, luckily for everone, Kabba couldn't play anyway due to injury and hence both clubs could credibly deny there wqas any enforceable agreement.
JJ Sefton
Live, Laugh, Love
Aye, no smoke wi'out fire.
See above, but in some circumstances, silence can be of evidential value. The fact that the people who run a company and are known for being litigious are being potentially libelled and they say silent, tends to be telling evidence that the alleged libel is true.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
- it was found that there was no case with United and Watford. If there was, then only Watford could be punished as theoretically they would have a player owned by a third party ( I saw no evidence of anyone stating that the 3rd party owner of tevez was to be punished)
- he accepted the verdict of guilt on west hams part, he just did not agree with the punishment of a fine. It's like a bank robber being found guilty of his crime, but only getting a fine instead of a prison sentence. Samuel would've argued for the prison sentence
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
We have a history under McCabe of not commenting on speculation from journalists.
Read the article from the Watford Observer I linked. Both clubs' websites said that Kabba couldn't play in the April game for contractual reason. Watford then denied that there was anything in the written contract to stop him playing.
The evidence is very strong that there was a verbal agreement he wouldn't play and when the shit started hitting the fan both parties denied the agreement.
Bladepicker
Paul Coutts Fan Club Founder Member
Quick point Darren, if there was a 'gentlemans agreement' and nothing in writing, surely Watford could have just stuck two fingers up at us (a bit like when Spurs recalled Walker from his season long loan) and just played him had he been scoring loads of goals. Whatever was agreed verbally, if it wasn't in the contract and Watford owned the player, they could do what they wanted with him, therefore no third party influence as we had no actual contractual ties to the player?
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
I didn't think we denied anything as we didn't make a statement...
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
I also seem to recall from the discussions from when it all happened that the rule refers to third party interests in the written contract
WHU's defence was that whatever the agreement said the 3rd party had no actual influence on the way WHU utilised Tevez, so I wouldn't go there
A verbal contract is just as good as a written contract and would theoretically have been enforceable, so if the PL found that there had been a verbal agreement that would have been a breach of a 3rd party rules.
I suspect these nod and wink agreements go on all the time and hence clubs have an incentive to abide by them; otherwise no-one would make such an agreement with them again.
ok, so we said on the website he couldn't play "due to a clause in his £500,000 move" and we never retracted that.
That's pretty damning.
Seriously, some of you are a bit like Samuels here, arguing against the bleedin' obvious, just because you are United fans.
The reality is:
1. United and Watford did have a dodgy deal re Kabba in Jan 07; by April 07, they realised it was dodgy and backtracked from it and, as luck would have it, Kabba couldn't play anyway as he was injured so no harm done. Justice would have been a smallish fine for both clubs
2. WHU had a dodgy deal for two of the world's best players (as opposed to a mediocre one like Kabba). They concealed and lied about the deal and those players, playing illegally, garnered them a significant amount of points. Justice would have been the points in every game in which they played being awarded to the opposition.
The reality is:
1. United and Watford did have a dodgy deal re Kabba in Jan 07; by April 07, they realised it was dodgy and backtracked from it and, as luck would have it, Kabba couldn't play anyway as he was injured so no harm done. Justice would have been a smallish fine for both clubs
2. WHU had a dodgy deal for two of the world's best players (as opposed to a mediocre one like Kabba). They concealed and lied about the deal and those players, playing illegally, garnered them a significant amount of points. Justice would have been the points in every game in which they played being awarded to the opposition.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
1. We've gone round in circles here Darren, regarding the kabba deal all we know as fact is that the committee found no evidence of wrong doing. Now if that means that there must be a clause in the contract to be classed as wrong doing. Samuel chose to speculate based on his conviction that there was wrong doings, yet despite all this damning evidence... Nobody has thought to challenge it. Seems odd to me that Mr Samuels 'convictions' were never taken any further.....
On your point though, Why would both clubs be punished? Why not just Watford IF they'd been found guilty of wrong doing
2. Nobody is disagreeing with you on this point
Both clubs said on their websites that Kabba couldn't play because of a clause in his contract. That seems to me pretty strong evidence there was such a clause. Whether or not the clubs said, "yes we did verbally agree that (hence the website) but when we realised it was wrong, cancelled it" and as a result they were not punished, I don't know., but the evidence that there was an initial agreement is overwhelming.
It could also be the case that given the balls up they made of the WHU situation, the PL took the view that it would be rather embarassing to the punish United for the Kabba situation.
Both clubs would have been punished because they were two PL clubs who entered into a conpiracy to break PL rules.
Pierre's PC
Herr Tentacle
In all honesty does Samuels have enough (or even any) clout to actually worry what the pieman says regarding the blades?
Journalist integrity and impartiality plays second fiddle to sensationalism to prop up a slowly dying medium.
It will be a cold day in hell before I take notice of people like Samuels and his ilk and base my opinions on a fractured bed of half thruths and hearsay.
Journalist integrity and impartiality plays second fiddle to sensationalism to prop up a slowly dying medium.
It will be a cold day in hell before I take notice of people like Samuels and his ilk and base my opinions on a fractured bed of half thruths and hearsay.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
As I said, there was no evidence of wrong doing found, what clubs write on websites and what is in the actual contract is, I'm sure often given some artistic licence. Does it sound better to say that manage a and manager b said on the phone that kabba can't play or is it better to say "contractually agreed. Do you know that the investigation didn't also have a quick shufty at the websites...
Given that this all took place before the tevez malarkey then you'd also have to assume that neither club had anything to hide.
As for punishing both Watford and the blades, if it was a gentleman's agreement and IF this DID break the rules, then we were powerless if Watford wanted to play him. It was their choice. Kia jorbaichin (can't be arsed to look up the spelling of his name) faced norepercussions despite being a registered agent in the PL, surely he would be punished too under your thinking?
What was the balls up that they made with the WHU? I don't think there was a balls up in the investigation was there? Just in the punishment. The verdict was guilty, the punishment was a fine...
grafikhaus
Kraft durch Freude
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...wich-accept-theyre-deservedly-going-down.html
The blind debating with the blind:-
West Ham fan:- "Sheffield United sued West Ham for £25m because we made a mistake in a grey area of the rules. They were not good enough to keep themselves in the league on the pitch. I’m glad to see them where they are now, and long may it continue. James, United Kingdom."
"It wasn’t a grey area, James, and it wasn’t a mistake. The rules were very clearly spelled out and West Ham lied about breaking them. The problem with Sheffield United’s original campaign for fairness is that they were also up to skulduggery over Steve Kabba’s transfer to Watford, but spoke and behaved as if the Carlos Tevez arrangement was the only rotten deal in town. This does not excuse West Ham, but it does support the suspicion that the clubs want the standards of the Wild West right up until the moment it affects them – when, suddenly, they want fairness."
I've just read the above thread and - if possible - my contempt for the 'legal profession' could not sink any lower. They manipulate words to suit their own sordid agenda, and then assume a 'high and mighty' agenda as if we are just poor minions.
If you ever need to put yourself in the hands of these 'legal professionals', think Max Clifford.
You seem to accept that there was an "agreement" between United and Watford that Kabba wouldn't play. It doesn't matter whether you call it a "contract" or a "gentleman's agreement" or anything else , as far as I see that agreement would breach the 3rd party rule.
The balls up was the punishment - my point was that what with United being relegated because WHU were not properly punished for a huge breach of the 3rd party rule, it would have just added insult to injury to punish United for a minor breach of the rule.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
Whether there was an "agreement" between the two clubs, I don't know. It would probably be the case as it seemed to be the case with most transfers which were done with teams in the same division to not play against their previous club. I don't know that there was, but if it was correct that there was a statement on both clubs websites confirming this, then we can assume that there was an "agreement" of sorts. What surprises me with yourself, being a legal eagle is that you have failed to acknowledge that this may have not been enough to have broken any rule. Just because Samuels conviction was strong, doesn't mean that either ourselves or Watford actually did anything wrong. As I said several times, both sides were cleared of any wrong doing.
As I said, I seem to remember the rule being somewhat ambiguous, I recall something about 3rd party interest being a written into contracts (it was a while ago though), in which case there probably wasn't anything written if it was a gents agreement
Now for me, if we accept that in the WHU case the investigation was done properly and we also assume in the blades and Watford case the investigation was done properly (we have no evidence to suggest otherwise), then we are only arguing about one side that was found guilty. West ham.
Even with Martin Samuels convictions, strong as they may be, he is bending and twisting his argument so much to try and find a damning case against us that it just makes him look so biased towards west ham. I my opinion, he's tried consistently to use smoke and mirrors to make us look like the bad guys.
Whilst it may seem like he's "on our side" because he said in 2007 that west ham should've been relegated, why is he now referring to us as the villains and not west ham when comparing the case to Sunderlands?
This is the relevant rule:
"The relevant PL rules were, prior to the recent rule change, PL rule V.20 (and formerly PL rule U18) which stated that no club may enter into a contract that enables a third party,
"to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams."
If there was therefore a contractual agreement between United and Watford that Kabba could not play in the April game then it seems to be beyond dispute that Watford were enabling a third party to "materially influence...the performance of its teams" and there was therefore a breach of this rule.
The issue then is whether or not there was a "contract". An agreement that Kabba would not play in the game on the understood basis that United would not sell him unless they had that clause would satisfy the legal definition of a contract.
It therefore seems to me that if there was such an agreement then the rule was breached. Watford would be in direct contravention of the rule and United would have abetted that breach.
I don't know why no-one was punished for this apparent breach, but it seems to be clear there was one.
12
A
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?