- Admin
- #91
So just because they say it makes it true?
The clubs asked for documented evidence... the Premier League for some reason seem reluctant to provide it.
Blades begin Arbitration
- Thread starter silverfox
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
- Status
So just because they say it makes it true?
The clubs asked for documented evidence... the Premier League for some reason seem reluctant to provide it.
They didn't sign them again. They amended the contract removing the offending clause
so what was the exact offences, in detail?
There was a clause that said his owners could sell him in the January transfer window
"There was a clause that said his owners could sell him in the January transfer window"
http://www.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/regulations/player_transfer/2003/Status_Transfer_EN.pdf
Article 10 (Stated as Art. 10) in this PDF states 'Club' and not 'Random English/Iranian Business man and his companies'
dosent that mean he broke the rules??
http://www.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/regulations/player_transfer/2003/Status_Transfer_EN.pdf
Article 10 (Stated as Art. 10) in this PDF states 'Club' and not 'Random English/Iranian Business man and his companies'
dosent that mean he broke the rules??
......
In january it was reported that West Ham signed the two players for "an undisclosed fee".
Isn't Tevez now back in the hands of that Kia dude? And when he is sold West Ham won't see a penny of the transfer fee?
There are no Premier League rules about 3rd parties owning players .. Exactly the same as loan deals aren't they
but the players were said to be signed for an "undisclosed fee"........doesn't sound like a loan deal to me.
Still not against Premier League rules
- Admin
- #101
Rule U18: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its team."
Relates to the third party ownership having influence on the player.
Relates to the third party ownership having influence on the player.
silverfox
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #103
If there was nothing wrong why did they get fined?
If there was nothing wrong why did consider taking points off them?
If there was nothing wrong why has the Premier League now agreed to the Arbitration process that Sheffield United have asked for??
They broke the rules and should have had points taken from them.
If there was nothing wrong why did consider taking points off them?
If there was nothing wrong why has the Premier League now agreed to the Arbitration process that Sheffield United have asked for??
They broke the rules and should have had points taken from them.
silverfox
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #105
If they think they have done everthing right why do we need this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...article_id=457006&in_page_id=1779&ito=newsnow
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...article_id=457006&in_page_id=1779&ito=newsnow
- Admin
- #106
Anyway, it's alright telling us not to bother because it's pointless.
If it bothers you so much and you really want a no doubt succinct reply straight from the horse's mouth... write to:
Kevin McCabe
c/o Sheffield United Football Club
Bramall Lane
Sheffield
S2 4SU
By the way: we ought to have had a penalty at Old Trafford too.
If it bothers you so much and you really want a no doubt succinct reply straight from the horse's mouth... write to:
Kevin McCabe
c/o Sheffield United Football Club
Bramall Lane
Sheffield
S2 4SU
By the way: we ought to have had a penalty at Old Trafford too.
shorehamview
Pink Sambuca drinking World Champion.
Yes it bloody well does. South of Watford = cockney. End of.
- Admin
- #108
shorehamview
Pink Sambuca drinking World Champion.
geedoubleu
New Member
It actually relates to a contract West Ham had with MSI that allowed MSI to decide when they wanted to sell the players. This was deemed by the PL to have allowed the 3rd party "to influence its policies or the performance of its team". I guess they assumed if West Ham were doing well MSI could sell the players on and make West Ham play poorly.
3rd party ownership of players is not a problem with the PL, UEFA or FIFA and is common place in Europe.
Leeds did a similar thing with Robbie Fowler and Rio Ferdinand, they bought the players and then sold them to a 3rd party and rented them back, that was never a problem.
geedoubleu
New Member
Arbitration is nothing to do with the rules, its because the chairman is threatening court action.
All the arbitration does is for all parties and someone independent to sit down and talk and see if they can avoid court. You will be very lucky to see anything out of this.
Also just because a rule is broken doesn't mean points are deducted.
- Admin
- #113
To be honest with you, most Blades have moved on from this matter and are concentrating on the new manager and coming Championship season.
It's just people keep joining up trying to talk to us about it!
It's just people keep joining up trying to talk to us about it!
geedoubleu
New Member
Addicks actually with a sort of soft spot for the hammers, I used to follow them when I was about 4 before going to the old Valley watching Peter Shirtliff and Co loss at Wembley.
We all get whipped up in a frenzy by the media and we all think coz we heard it by three different people it must be true.
- Admin
- #115
Thread closed.
Attention people who are signing up to argue:
1) Why bother signing up telling us that the argument is tedious and useless... when in reality, we were happy to let the thread die and it was YOU that dug it up!
2) Telling us that it is pointless to take legal action is slightly futile... we are not, our chairman is.
3) Our Chairman has taken legal advice which he believes to be sound and is acting in the best interests of the PLC and shareholders. It is purely about money - we do not expect to be reinstated in the League. Most Blades don't expect we'll even get any money.
4) Despite what you say... West Ham did do wrong because they were found guilty of two offences under two seperate rules. Saying they didn't do anything wrong is a bit daft really
5) We are happy to let the arbitration reconsider the facts. We are also getting a bit bored with going over the same arguments again and again.
6) We mere Blades just want to concentrate on getting ready for the season in the Championship... so if you've signed up just to have your say on something that is out of everyone's hands, will you just do us a favour and let us get on with it?
Thank you.
Attention people who are signing up to argue:
1) Why bother signing up telling us that the argument is tedious and useless... when in reality, we were happy to let the thread die and it was YOU that dug it up!
2) Telling us that it is pointless to take legal action is slightly futile... we are not, our chairman is.
3) Our Chairman has taken legal advice which he believes to be sound and is acting in the best interests of the PLC and shareholders. It is purely about money - we do not expect to be reinstated in the League. Most Blades don't expect we'll even get any money.
4) Despite what you say... West Ham did do wrong because they were found guilty of two offences under two seperate rules. Saying they didn't do anything wrong is a bit daft really
5) We are happy to let the arbitration reconsider the facts. We are also getting a bit bored with going over the same arguments again and again.
6) We mere Blades just want to concentrate on getting ready for the season in the Championship... so if you've signed up just to have your say on something that is out of everyone's hands, will you just do us a favour and let us get on with it?
Thank you.
- Status
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?