The Kabba Transfer

[jodman]

I know that the stead thread (poetry included at no extra cost) below has started to cover this subject slightly, i thought a new thread would be the best way to discuss some issues regarding the controversy regarding the Kabba transfer.

One of the last posts of the afore mentioned thread asked why the Tim Howard transfer, which involved a similar situation when new club met old club last season, has not faced similar scruitiny.

The difference with the Tim Howard situation (allegedly) is that rather then being written into the contract that he could not play against his former charges, a gentlemans agreement was made between the two clubs before the transfer was completed.

This situation with the Kabba transfer is actually starting to worry me, it would appear that we did have it written in the contract that he could not play against us (i'm sure Neil Warnock catagorically stated as much in post match interviews) and this could prove the 'get out of jail' card needed by the PL.

Regardless of the outcome of the arbitration (im so sick of typing that word) there has to be some serious questions asked of whichever governing body gives transfers the green light.
If the Tevez/Mascherano deal, which reeked of corruption from the outset, can be passed as legal only to lead to the, frankly, embaressing chain of events which have followed then they are clearly not doing their jobs correctly.

Similarly, our manager can publicly state on multiple occasions that an (allegedly) illegal clause has been included in one of our transfers without investigation immidiate investigation (it has taken the best part of 6 months to come under the microscope).

I have so many questions to which i expect to never have satisfactory answers but the only thing i am sure of is that while West Ham may be punished and we will likely be punished; i doubt the people whose ineptitude has dragged the good name of English football through the mud will face any kind of repercussions...am i getting old or is the game not what it used to be?

Rant over, thanks for your attention.

 

[silverfox]

I've said it elsewhere.

3 points per player per game for any wrong doing.

Even if it's us!

 

[Bladesman]

West Ham wouldnt have many left then.

 

[happyhippy]

That's not the difference as I see it. Howard would never have been able to play againt Manure if still on loan, but simply didn't play v them. What people are saying is that Kabba was forbidden by us, in the terms of his contract, to play against us last season.

The terms of the contract were scrutinised by the PL, as with any other contract, and the PL agreed to it.

As for Tevez and Mascherano, the true nature of the deals weren't revealed until late in the season, and were found to be in breach of the PL rules.

 

[jodman]

That's not the difference as I see it. Howard would never have been able to play againt Manure if still on loan, but simply didn't play v them. What people are saying is that Kabba was forbidden by us, in the terms of his contract, to play against us last season.

The terms of the contract were scrutinised by the PL, as with any other contract, and the PL agreed to it.

I'm struggling to decipher your point here, it appears like you are saying that everton simply dropped Howard for the game against Man Utd but both parties have stated that a gentlemans agreement was in place to prevent the keeper from playing against his former club.

Do you genuinely believe that, against the strongest team in the league, Everton would resort to a very young and unproved back-up keeper through choice?

As for Tevez and Mascherano, the true nature of the deals weren't revealed until late in the season, and were found to be in breach of the PL rules.

Again, you seem to be backing up my original point, all transfers must be given the green light by the governing body because they are the ones who create the rules by which such transfers must abide. The nature of the deals should have been made apparent from the outset, if any irregularities were uncovered then the matter could be dealt with before the transfer is sactioned.

If this did take place and West Ham did not disclose the 3rd part agreement (this seems to be the general concensus) then surely that invalidated the entire transfer and both players should have been illegible for all games played before and after the illegal clause was descovered.

I obviously don't have all the facts but if the scenario above is accurate then i cannot believe how lenient the punnishment was for such a serious offence and i would fully expect the arbitration to rule in our favour or risk consoildating a very dangerous precedent set by the original hearing.

 

[sendô WHU]

The facts are, that the PL is, as we all knew, horribly inept at the job which it's senior staff quite likely earn much higher figures than the majority of football fans up and down the country.

How they could miss out on the third party part of the Tevez/Mascherano transfer is beyond me, considering everyone the length and breadth of the country knew all about it. Then they still manage to miss the 'Howard deal', where he missed a game in which Everton were 2-0 up and seemingly in control until an inexperienced back up gk dropped a cross/shot (I forget which), allowing Man Utd to score, and eventually go on to win.

The fact that it was a 'gentlemans agreement' should make no difference. A back hander is a kind of 'gentlemans agreement', would we want to allow that to carry on unchecked?

Now we have a case of a team clearly forcing another team to drop a player that they'd been playing in every game since signing him. Everything is in writing on official websites and Warnock himself admitted it on national TV.

Considering the furore surrounding the Tevez bollocks, are we going to see similar for the above? More importantly, is McCabe going to demand Sheff Utd be relegated under his 'fairness in football' campaign? Will Sean Bean be marching to London to highlight the fact that Man Utd and Sheff Utd didnt play by the rules? Are those two clubs going to be constantly labelled as cheats and villified by all and sundry until everyone is bored to tears with it?

I doubt anything will happen, as lets face it, it isn't newsworthy, and those usually inept wankers at the PL will do the one thing they are actually good at - they will brush it under the carpet.

 

[matth]

If the agreement was in the transfer contract, the PL should have spotted it when they ratified the transfer.

If the agreement was not in the transfer contract, it's a gentleman's agreement and the precedent has been set that no action will be taken.

If the agreement was added into the written contract after the PL had ratified it, then Watford and Blades would hardly shout about it in the press, would they?

 

[Linz]

More importantly, is McCabe going to demand Sheff Utd be relegated under his 'fairness in football' campaign?

We'll give those three points back if you give all the points back you earned with Tevez in the team... makes it about even don't you think?

To add the Watford element to this (shouldn't they [also?] be in trouble?)... some fans are saying that they were at an advantage not playing him, as they would have probably lost by more. And the only thing wrong with the contract is that we purportedly sold them a footballer, something they dispute vehemently

 

[sendô WHU]

Ah yes, the 'Kabba is shit' arguement, which leads me to another point - if Tevez was another average footballer, would their have been the same furore?

I somehow doubt it.

 

[matth]

If Tevez was an average footballer, WHU wouldn't have had to have accepted the illegal clause to sign him, so no, there wouldn't have been this furore.

 

[jodman]

Ah yes, the 'Kabba is shit' arguement, which leads me to another point - if Tevez was another average footballer, would their have been the same furore?

I somehow doubt it.

Lets call a spade a spade, if tevez was a poor player he would not have single handedly saved West Ham from relegation whilst condemning us to the championship (coupled with our shocking form at the end of the season). West Ham would have been relegated and ultimately, the campaign for justice would not have been set up.

In this scenario, you would have still cheated / mislead / whatever the PL but you would have been relegated regardless and the SUFC board would not see this as injustice as you didn’t gain anything. Ultimately, the campaign for fairness would not have happened because West Ham did not prosper from their wrong doings.

However, the player in question was the major contributory factor in keeping you in the premiership and sending us down, we have paid a big price because of this and so the campaign for some kind of justice was born.

So I suppose the answer to your question is no, but I hardly see what that has to do with anything.

Back to the Kabba scenario, I see no reason why Watford are not equally to blame for any clause in the contract and I also agree that Kabba’s ability (or lack there for) has no bearing on the situation.

 

[Bladesman]

If the agreement was in the transfer contract, the PL should have spotted it when they ratified the transfer.

If the agreement was not in the transfer contract, it's a gentleman's agreement and the precedent has been set that no action will be taken.

If the agreement was added into the written contract after the PL had ratified it, then Watford and Blades would hardly shout about it in the press, would they?

Exactly that.

 

[sendô WHU]

Lets call a spade a spade, if tevez was a poor player he would not have single handedly saved West Ham from relegation whilst condemning us to the championship (coupled with our shocking form at the end of the season). West Ham would have been relegated and ultimately, the campaign for justice would not have been set up.

Ok let us dispell the 'Tevez single handedly saved West Ham from relegation myth once and for all. In our last 9 games:

2-1 vs Blackburn - He won and scored the penalty for our equaliser. But then he actually blocked Zamoras goal later on. Luckily that brown envelope full of ca.. err I mean clever lino allowed the goal.

2-0 vs Boro - He scored the second goal, but then Boro were so crap that day Watford could have turned them over with ease, with or without Kabba.

1-0 vs Arsenal - Zamora scored with just about our only shot and Green somehow pulled off a string of great saves. No Tevez needed.

0-3 vs Sheff Utd - Tevez played the whole game, but couldn't single handedly beat a team that was bound for relegation. Hmmm.

1-4 vs Chelsea - Tevez scores but ultimately we lose.

1-0 vs Everton - Zamora with the only goal.

3-0 vs Wigan - Tevez has a hand in the 2nd and 3rd goals, but Wigan were thoroughly outplayed all over the pitch for 90 mins.

3-1 vs Bolton - Tevez was instrumental in this game, scoring 2 and assisting 1. His first a cracking free kick, the second a tap in from a Boa Morte cross that had he missed Zamora was on hand at the back post. The third a cracking volley from Noble.

1-0 vs Man U - Tevez gets the winner, but ultimately a draw would have done.

So, hardly single handed eh?

In this scenario, you would have still cheated / mislead / whatever the PL but you would have been relegated regardless and the SUFC board would not see this as injustice as you didn’t gain anything. Ultimately, the campaign for fairness would not have happened because West Ham did not prosper from their wrong doings.

So the campaign for justice has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with Sheff Utd blaming West Ham for their not being good enough over 38 games? Just as I suspected.

 

[matth]

If you say so, love, and if it makes you feel better.

 

[Jack & Helga]

So the campaign for justice has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with Sheff Utd blaming West Ham for their not being good enough over 38 games? Just as I suspected.

I didn't watch all of Wham's games, but if you're 100% right in what you say (above) then Tevez was the difference between you staying up and going down.

The fight for justice continues...

 

[TonyAgana]

Sorry Sendo, was that post an attempt to convince us that Tevez DIDN'T single-handedly keep you up????

 

[jodman]

So, hardly single handed eh?

Thanks for proving my point on that one, i'm glad we agree on this.

So the campaign for justice has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with Sheff Utd blaming West Ham for their not being good enough over 38 games? Just as I suspected.

Whilst you seem happy to both ask and answer your own questions, i will provide a retort.

If you were relegated, then justice would have been served because you did not prosper from cheating and so the campaign would not have been neccessary(taking into account that you already had been fined for the illegal contract).

As things turned out, by cheating you avoided relegation and so justice was not served and the campaign is required.

 

[happyhippy]

I'm struggling to decipher your point here, it appears like you are saying that everton simply dropped Howard for the game against Man Utd but both parties have stated that a gentlemans agreement was in place to prevent the keeper from playing against his former club.

Do you genuinely believe that, against the strongest team in the league, Everton would resort to a very young and unproved back-up keeper through choice?

I wasn't aware of the 'gentleman's agreement', or at least that it was made public.

Again, you seem to be backing up my original point, all transfers must be given the green light by the governing body because they are the ones who create the rules by which such transfers must abide. The nature of the deals should have been made apparent from the outset, if any irregularities were uncovered then the matter could be dealt with before the transfer is sactioned.

If this did take place and West Ham did not disclose the 3rd part agreement (this seems to be the general concensus) then surely that invalidated the entire transfer and both players should have been illegible for all games played before and after the illegal clause was descovered.

I obviously don't have all the facts but if the scenario above is accurate then i cannot believe how lenient the punnishment was for such a serious offence and i would fully expect the arbitration to rule in our favour or risk consoildating a very dangerous precedent set by the original hearing.

Agreed.

 

[dj_uk_1234]

I thought there was nothing wrong with the Howard deal?

The reason Howard didn't play because technically he was still on loan?

 

[happyhippy]

Tim Howard linky here

I think you're right actually dj. The deal became permanent/was agreed to be permanent in February (which would have been outside the transfer window?), BUT didn't come into effect until the end of the season, at the earliest.

 

[dj_uk_1234]

Tim Howard linky here

I think you're right actually dj. The deal became permanent/was agreed to be permanent in February (which would have been outside the transfer window?), BUT didn't come into effect until the end of the season, at the earliest.

Exactly, and because the transfer went through in february, he was still on loan, meaning the deal wasn't going through till the end of his contract / end of the season.

So actually, the Howard situation, is 100% legal, and that's why it hasn't been looked into.

Pfffft

 

[matth]

That article suggest exactly the opposite of that, and in fact the PL said that Howard could have played in that match.

 

[Jack & Helga]

That article suggest exactly the opposite of that, and in fact the PL said that Howard could have played in that match.

It does to be fair.
But this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/e/everton/6362649.stm says "The 27-year-old United States star has signed a five-year contract, that will start at the end of the season."

 

[jodman]

I think that, regardless of what is is written in the media, the details of the transfer / loan / gentlemans agreement are not public knowledge and so none of the stories can be regarded as completely true.

I do think that the Howard deal will prove to be cosher but hopefully the grey area surrounding the 'loan or transfer' situation may work in out favour.

I cannot think of a similar situation which may help our cause or provide a precedent and it is this which is cauing me concern.

 

[matth]

If there's any way of the PL getting us on this, they will. Although they may open a whole can of worms for themselves, if they ratified the transfer in the first place.

If any wrongdoing has been done on our part, I'd be the first to say punish us accordingly.

 

[debaser_74]

Exactly, and because the transfer went through in february, he was still on loan, meaning the deal wasn't going through till the end of his contract / end of the season.

So actually, the Howard situation, is 100% legal, and that's why it hasn't been looked into.

Pfffft

Not quite right. The deal. although concluded outside of the window was a permanant transfer, i may be wrong here but i believe that as he was already on loan at Everton it was allowed to go through, signed, sealed and gentlemanly agreed.In the run-up to the Everton- Man Utd game every preview either online or in the papers stated that Howard was ineligible to play due to a gentlemans agreement. Once Martin Samuel questioned the rules on this matter the premier league conducted an in-depth investigation by asking both clubs if he could've played!!! Everton then back-tracked and claimed that Howard had been availible for selection and that the third choice keeper was played against (arguably) the best team in Europe out of choice. This is where the premier league needed to show some balls and probe the matter further, instead they dropped it, presumably due to a lack of evidence. With Kabba, the matter appears to be more complicated. The quotes attributed to Neil Warnock on the matter unequivically state that he was unable to play due to a clause in his contract. Following on from the Nallis transfer which came back and bit Neill on the backside no-one can blame him for insisting this couldn't happen again, that these gentlemans agreements were unreliable. So the question remains whether or not the clause was in the contract or just an agreement, either way it has cast doubt over the "fairness in football" campaign and the true motivations of McCabe. To now suggest 3pts per game played as punishment for Tevez as only one Sheffield Utd game could be called into question over Kabba would be moving the goalposts a little, don't ya think?

 

[matth]

Not necessarily, although I do hear what you're saying. Kabba's non-involvement affected one match, whereas Tevez' affected the outcome of many. There's also the question mark over whether the PL should have allowed him to continue playing for WHU after the facts came out.

They're two very different situations, and one main point is that we acted in good faith, not hiding anything, whereas WHU deliberately concealed an illegal clause in order to sign a player and give themselves an unfair advantage.

 

[debaser_74]

Not necessarily, although I do hear what you're saying. Kabba's non-involvement affected one match, whereas Tevez' affected the outcome of many. There's also the question mark over whether the PL should have allowed him to continue playing for WHU after the facts came out.

They're two very different situations, and one main point is that we acted in good faith, not hiding anything, whereas WHU deliberately concealed an illegal clause in order to sign a player and give themselves an unfair advantage.

In the report from the West Ham disciplinary the premier league said that had they been made aware of the clause they would have found a way to work around it, like Liverpool did with Mascherano (yes i know there a bigger club etc). It also has to be taken into account that everyone thought Joorabchian would take control at upton park, so it's fair to assume he would've seen them transfers go through with or without the clause (which, quite frankly makes it incredible that the club agreed to it). Obviously were looking at it all from different perspectives but remember the wording from the now infamous report that the premier league "could" terminate Tevez's registration. I'm sure that had the report concluded that the premier league "must" terminate his registration that is what would have happened. To say Kabba's non-involvement affected one game is true, however if Warnock has refused to sell him without a clause then Kabba wouldn't have been availible to play for Watford against West Ham, Wigan and Man Citeh who were all relegation rivals.

 

[sendô WHU]

Sorry Sendo, was that post an attempt to convince us that Tevez DIDN'T single-handedly keep you up????

Well did he score all the goals in all the games we won? Apart from the Bolton game, where I concede he was instrumental, and the Man Utd game, in which a draw would have done anyway, he didn't really make a huge impact on any other game.

Blackburn - Zamora 'goal' won it.
Boro - dire team, without Tevez it would have been at least 1-0.
Arsenal - Green's brilliant goalkeeping and Zamora lobbing Lehmann
Everton - Zamora again
Wigan - were woeful. First goal had nothing to do with Tevez and the second two were largely down to quick breaking.

The other game he scored in - chelsea - we lost, and then there was one more game against some other team where he played shit, whose name escapes me.

Thanks for proving my point on that one, i'm glad we agree on this.

You need to take the blinkers off sunshine

Whilst you seem happy to both ask and answer your own questions, i will provide a retort.

If you were relegated, then justice would have been served because you did not prosper from cheating and so the campaign would not have been neccessary(taking into account that you already had been fined for the illegal contract).

As things turned out, by cheating you avoided relegation and so justice was not served and the campaign is required.

You may or may not be aware, but the PL actually stated that had West Ham (Terry Brown) handed over all the relevant documents back in August (including the supposed third party influence one) then the PL would have allowed the registration anyway (largely due to the ambiguity of rule U18 or whatever number it was). West Ham, would have just needed to change it so that Tevez could have been sold in January without West Ham's consent. Hardly OMG CHEATS! CHEATS! material eh? (Not that I expect you to agree of course. That would require being objective.)

 

[Bladesman]

You may aswell give up debating it Sendo.

Just let the PL give us some money and admit there useless coz thats all thats gonna probably happen.