Martin Samuel - The Debate

[FATTYFOULKE]

Surely in a gentleman's agreement it's just that, an agreement not a contract?
We couldn't enforce it had we wished to do so so therefore it's not a contract but just an agreement or understanding. We placed our trust in the management of Watford that by doing them a favour in selling him they wouldn't bite the hand that fed them by using him against us.
The whole Kabba thing is just a desperate attempt by Samuels to deflect focus away from what West Ham did.
Which lest we forget was deliberately deceive the PL, lie about it then lie again.
For me lying about it a second time was almost as bad a crime as the deliberate cheating in the first place, and that was something the PL should have severely punished them for on its own.

 

[oldblade]

I found this

http://m.watfordobserver.co.uk/search/1491972.Why_did_Kabba_not_make_cut_for_Blades_clash_/

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.

But any agreement (if there was one) was not and could never have been enforceable anyway.

At the time, such gentlemen's agreements were not against championship league rules and it may be that as both clubs had only recently been playing in the championship that they originally did not realise they were in breach of premier league rules (if indeed they were).

I do remember around the time that Samuels raised this issue, there was a pretty clear denial on the Watford website that any such agreement existed.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Surely in a gentleman's agreement it's just that, an agreement not a contract?

Darren is reight, Contract Law 101, an unwritten contract can still be a contract. The key point is whether there was offer and acceptance.

 

[Punk Blade]

I've just spent a while trying to find some reports to back up my memory, but can't find any quotes from Scudamore/Premier League re. further breaches by WHU after the fine. But I'll go with my memory anyway and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

• Mascherano and Tevez were not registered within PL rules.
• They both played plenty of games, and in particular Tevez played out of his skin to win them umpteen points towards the end of the season.
• On April 27th 2007 they were found guilty of breaching whatever rules, and fined £5.5m. Broke rule > found guilty > punished > case closed.
• At the time of the fine I recall Scudamore/Premier League adding that if there were found to be breaching the same rules again, a heavier punishment would be in order (points deduction/relegation implied).
• Tevez played the final three games of the season.

I believe they were given dispensation to 'sign' Tevez beyond the transfer deadline. They had been punished for the initial breach of PL rules and someone deemed the £5.5m fine sufficient. My memory is that it was later found that either the original 3rd party agreement was still in effect for the final 3 games, or that the registration of Tevez was not completed within PL rules for the final 3 games. Either way, this was a second breach of the rules, the one that Scudamore promised a points deduction for.

But.... nothing. Which is why we had to go through however many courts to get some compensation.

So in this case, Sunderland broke a rule, got fined, didn't break it again. There is no case for the relegated trio.

If anyone wants any further action taken against a team breaking Premier League rules, then West Ham are STILL due a points deduction.

 

[Hollinsend]

This has probably been covered, but I always thought that even if there was third party influence, the party that would be penalised is the one that allowed it, i.e. Watford.

Nice to see an old thread doing so well...

 

[BerksBlade]

As has been pointed out before (and above): Kabba's contract was with Watford - so it's Watford who were potentially subject to 3rd-party influence. The Blades just happened to be that 3rd party. There's no precedent for "punishing" the 3rd parties. "Gentlemen's agreements" like this were fairly common anyway.

Very different from West Ham's case. The question I always ask here is: Who received the transfer fees for Tevez & Mascherano when they left West Ham?

 

[Selly]

As has been pointed out before (and above): Kabba's contract was with Watford - so it's Watford who were potentially subject to 3rd-party influence. The Blades just happened to be that 3rd party. There's no precedent for "punishing" the 3rd parties. "Gentlemen's agreements" like this were fairly common anyway.

Very different from West Ham's case. The question I always ask here is: Who received the transfer fees for Tevez & Mascherano when they left West Ham?

The question I always ask is, if there is no further third party involvement, why would a Premier League club, holding the registration of a £30m player for the next 3 years sell that player for only £2m??? Why??

 

[DronnieBlade]

Samuels - here is my two penneth.

Full weight cunt.

Hope this contributes to your debate

 

[SwissBlade]

Darren is reight, Contract Law 101, an unwritten contract can still be a contract. The key point is whether there was offer and acceptance.

But we're not talking contract law where one party is disputing the so called agreement, were saying that if there was an agreement (we're not sure there was), there was no evidence found of this during the investigation. Hence no wrong doing found.

Presumably there was no document trail to prove wrong doing and I don't think a commentary on a website is sufficient to prove an agreement - does it?

 

[grafikhaus]

He's a professional journalist, He shouldn't comment on things about West Ham if he cant act impartially. His tagline should be 'I am a West Ham fan' whenever this subject comes up. I genuinely don't think he realises how biased he is on the subject but his editors should. It's like a United fan talking about who the bigger club in Sheffield is with no opposite argument from a Wednesday fan. The whole thing would be totally skewed in United favour.

Yeah. Imagine if Radio Sheffield was staffed by Wednesdayites*. Imagine the Sheffield Star filling the back page with non-stories about Wednesday?

* Praise and Grumble is normally on for 2 hours on Saturday. Last week it was curtailed after an hour. It's not as if there was no local interest - Chezzie & Rotherham chasing promotion/play offs. Donnie getting relegated with seconds to go. Ah! Wednesday lost.

 

[Darren]

As has been pointed out before (and above): Kabba's contract was with Watford - so it's Watford who were potentially subject to 3rd-party influence. The Blades just happened to be that 3rd party. There's no precedent for "punishing" the 3rd parties. "Gentlemen's agreements" like this were fairly common anyway.

Very different from West Ham's case. The question I always ask here is: Who received the transfer fees for Tevez & Mascherano when they left West Ham?

If one PL club aids and abets the breach of a rule by another PL club, I really don't think the former club could object if it were also punished.

 

[ChrisBlade]

Darren is usually very good at arguing. But in this case I feel he has run himself into a corner by substituting his own judgment of what he believes to be the facts for what the investigations obviously found to be the facts. So to me, the line of argumentation of Swiss is far more convincing.

Fatty has a shit argument in the first place. And then is disingenuous in the way he uses it. I have no idea quite why Darren is so adamant in not letting it go. But then again, I never followed Walthy-Darren discussions to their conclusion. It may just be the way of the world...

Put differently, is the child that may have stolen a sweetie from the bakery ten minutes ago a hypocrite when it runs to the police because it witnessed the theft of the principal's Chelsea tractor???

 

[Darren]

Darren is usually very good at arguing. But in this case I feel he has run himself into a corner by substituting his own judgment of what he believes to be the facts for what the investigations obviously found to be the facts. So to me, the line of argumentation of Swiss is far more convincing.

Fatty has a shit argument in the first place. And then is disingenuous in the way he uses it. I have no idea quite why Darren is so adamant in not letting it go. But then again, I never followed Walthy-Darren discussions to their conclusion. It may just be the way of the world...

Put differently, is the child that may have stolen a sweetie from the bakery ten minutes ago a hypocrite when it runs to the police because it witnessed the theft of the principal's Chelsea tractor???

Because it's clear that in their initial agreement Watford did break the third party influence ruled aided and abetted by United; both parties admitted as much on their websites. By April, it was clear that both parties realised they were in a little bit of shit about this and resiled from the agreement.

As, in the end, there was no 3rd party influence (because by the time the game was played, Watford, at least, denied that any agreement was operative), that may well be the explanation as to why no action was taken.

I agree with everyone that what United and Watford did was as a drop in the ocean compared with the tidal waves of wrongdoing by WHU. I also agree that Samuels' argument is a pretty poor one (that United's wrongdoing on a minor issue precluded them from seeking to put a major wrongding right; that's a bit like saying that if you once nicked a a Mars Bar from the corner shop, you now have no right to complain to the police if someone beats the shit out of you). However, that doesn't alter the point that the evidence is overwhelming that United did initially conclude an agreement that breached the third party influence rule.

 

[Rodders]

I agree with Darren (and Fatty) here. Some of the comments here are just as myopic as what is claimed Samuels has been. He does make a good point about the PL being like the Wild West; it reminds me of when Pompey were up shit creek financially - the PL had a vote with all other 19 clubs if they agreed that Pompey should get their next TV money payment. All 19 clubs voted "No", Scudamore said, "oh err.. too late because we've already given it them". Just so they didn't go bust and damage the PL brand.

Tevez aside, I've always thought Samuels was a decent journalist. There, I said it.

 

[Selly]

Because it's clear that in their initial agreement Watford did break the third party influence ruled aided and abetted by United; both parties admitted as much on their websites. By April, it was clear that both parties realised they were in a little bit of shit about this and resiled from the agreement.

As, in the end, there was no 3rd party influence (because by the time the game was played, Watford, at least, denied that any agreement was operative), that may well be the explanation as to why no action was taken.

I agree with everyone that what United and Watford did was as a drop in the ocean compared with the tidal waves of wrongdoing by WHU. I also agree that Samuels' argument is a pretty poor one (that United's wrongdoing on a minor issue precluded them from seeking to put a major wrongding right; that's a bit like saying that if you once nicked a a Mars Bar from the corner shop, you now have no right to complain to the police if someone beats the shit out of you). However, that doesn't alter the point that the evidence is overwhelming that United did initially conclude an agreement that breached the third party influence rule.

The big thing for me is that Watford and SUFC were always very open about the agreement.

WHU on the other hand, faced with the prospect o two World Class players:

• entered into an agreement they knew was against the rules; then
• repeatedly lied to the PL that there wasn't any other documentation the PL hadn`t seen

For me the second charge is the more serious one because it shows a complete lack of moral fibre to the procedings. For me personally, I'd have thrown them out of the league for that alone...

 

[itsinyerblood]

The big thing for me is that Watford and SUFC were always very open about the agreement.

WHU on the other hand, faced with the prospect o two World Class players:

• entered into an agreement they knew was against the rules; then
• repeatedly lied to the PL that there wasn't any other documentation the PL hadn`t seen

For me the second charge is the more serious one because it shows a complete lack of moral fibre to the procedings. For me personally, I'd have thrown them out of the league for that alone...

All good points Selly, ones that Samuels swerves around constantly. His articles on this topic allow him to ask and answer the same questions that he regards as pertinent, so he sets the agenda, one that in his mind offers a comprehensive debate that shuns those unnecessary, niggly questions that don't fit in nicely with his carefully considered script.

 

[Darren]

The big thing for me is that Watford and SUFC were always very open about the agreement.

WHU on the other hand, faced with the prospect o two World Class players:

• entered into an agreement they knew was against the rules; then
• repeatedly lied to the PL that there wasn't any other documentation the PL hadn`t seen

For me the second charge is the more serious one because it shows a complete lack of moral fibre to the procedings. For me personally, I'd have thrown them out of the league for that alone...

I agree.

I am arguing against those who - because of their red and white tinted glasses - argue that United did not break any rules. They clearly did, but it was a minor breach which, in the event, had no effect and was as nothing compared to WHU's breach.

The other point is that Samuels is not the evil genius he is portrayed, as:

* he agrees WHI should have been relegated
* he is right that United and Watford also acted against the rules.

Where he can be criticised is equating United's wrongdoing with WHU's and suggesting they balance out.

 

[nowtfancy]

Just to add my twopenneth, my recollection through the red mist & emotion of the time, wasn't the justification of not imposing a points deduction (at least partly) to do with not negatively impacting on fans?

Apologies if I've added another reason to mistrust (detest) the "leadership" of the game, but I'm sure I read that at the time!

 

[Foxy]

Where he can be criticised is equating United's wrongdoing with WHU's and suggesting they balance out.

That and his inconsistent opinions

 

[JohnDenver]

That and his inconsistent opinions

And going on about it time after time. It amazes me his editor doesn't sack him for plagiarising himself.

 

[oldblade]

I agree with everyone that what United and Watford did was as a drop in the ocean compared with the tidal waves of wrongdoing by WHU. I also agree that Samuels' argument is a pretty poor one (that United's wrongdoing on a minor issue precluded them from seeking to put a major wrongding right; that's a bit like saying that if you once nicked a a Mars Bar from the corner shop, you now have no right to complain to the police if someone beats the shit out of you). However, that doesn't alter the point that the evidence is overwhelming that United did initially conclude an agreement that breached the third party influence rule.

If the evidence was overwhelming action would have been taken by the premier league against one or other of the parties involved, even if that action was just a warning. The fact that no action was taken and the investigation into the matter concluded there was no evidence of wrong doing shows that whatever 'evidence' existed, it was far, far, far from overwhelming.

 

[Darren]

If the evidence was overwhelming action would have been taken by the premier league against one or other of the parties involved, even if that action was just a warning. The fact that no action was taken and the investigation into the matter concluded there was no evidence of wrong doing shows that whatever 'evidence' existed, it was far, far, far from overwhelming.

As I say, I don't why no action was taken, but I really can't see any evidence more overwhelming than a posting on their websites by both clubs that that as part of the Kabba deal he wasn't allowed to play in the game between the clubs. That seems to me to be an admission that Watford were allowing a third party (United) to influence their performance on the pitch and thus broke the rule quoted above.

Perhaps no action was taken because when the clubs realised the shit the deal had landed them in, they cancelled the deal (helped by the fact that Kabba was not going to play anyway) and thus they could argue that,in actual fact, there was no third party influence, so no need for any sanction.

Which actually just goes to show what small beer the whole thing was: United and Watford entered into a deal in January to do something illegal in April. However, before the illegality had been performed, they cancelled the deal. So no harm done.

 

[oldblade]

As I say, I don't why no action was taken, but I really can't see any evidence more overwhelming than a posting on their websites by both clubs that that as part of the Kabba deal he wasn't allowed to play in the game between the clubs. That seems to me to be an admission that Watford were allowing a third party (United) to influence their performance on the pitch and thus broke the rule quoted above.

Perhaps no action was taken because when the clubs realised the shit the deal had landed them in, they cancelled the deal (helped by the fact that Kabba was not going to play anyway) and thus they could argue that,in actual fact, there was no third party influence, so no need for any sanction.

Which actually just goes to show what small beer the whole thing was: United and Watford entered into a deal in January to do something illegal in April. However, before the illegality had been performed, they cancelled the deal. So no harm done.

If the deal was cancelled, then the reality surely is that there is no deal and if there is no deal there is no offence and no evidence of an offence.

I doubt very much that anyone involved in working out the terms of the transfer was involved in updating either club's website. Perhaps assumptions and statements were made based on inaccuracies. It would not be the first time. I am pretty sure that if there was "overwhelming" evidence of wrong doing the premier league would have taken some sort of action. But not only was no action taken, the investigation stated that there was no evidence of wrong doing.

Added to which, Watford placed an article on their website stating quite categorically that there was no agreement for Kabba not to play against us.

 

[Darren]

If the deal was cancelled, then the reality surely is that there is no deal and if there is no deal there is no offence and no evidence of an offence.

I doubt very much that anyone involved in working out the terms of the transfer was involved in updating either club's website. Perhaps assumptions and statements were made based on inaccuracies. It would not be the first time. I am pretty sure that if there was "overwhelming" evidence of wrong doing the premier league would have taken some sort of action. But not only was no action taken, the investigation stated that there was no evidence of wrong doing.

If a company puts out publicly on its website that it has committed an offence, I don't think it would get far saying that the person who did the website was stupid. It would also be stretching credibility to suggest that both clubs had idiots doing their websites and that they had both made identical errors.

So you have the alternatives that

(a) there was no deal, but both clubs had someone putting exactly the same false information on their websites (presumably independently of each other); or
(b) there was a deal, which was publicised, and then later cancelled when the clubs realised it was against the rules.

Don;t you really think (b) is much more likely?

And there's also the point that United (unlike Watford) have never retracted the original statement that there was a deal. Surely if the posting was made in error, they would have done that.

 

[oldblade]

If a company puts out publicly on its website that it has committed an offence, I don't think it would get far saying that the person who did the website was stupid. It would also be stretching credibility to suggest that both clubs had idiots doing their websites and that they had both made identical errors.

So you have the alternatives that

(a) there was no deal, but both clubs had someone putting exactly the same false information on their websites (presumably independently of each other); or
(b) there was a deal, which was publicised, and then later cancelled when the clubs realised it was against the rules.

Don;t you really think (b) is much more likely?

And there's also the point that United (unlike Watford) have never retracted the original statement that there was a deal. Surely if the posting was made in error, they would have done that.

I think you are flogging a dead horse, Darren. Don't you think the premier league enquiry into this matter would have been fully aware of the relevant entries on both clubs' websites?

They found no case to answer and stated as much. If they had found any substantial evidence some sort of action would have been taken.

It's the word "overwhelming" that I particularly take issue with, not the fact that you think there may have been some evidence.

Quite clearly such evidence as there was, was not overwhelming. If it was overwhelming the premier league would have taken action, but it wasn't so they didn't.

 

[Darren]

I think you are flogging a dead horse, Darren. Don't you think the premier league enquiry into this matter would have been fully aware of the relevant entries on both clubs' websites?

They found no case to answer and stated as much. If they had found any substantial evidence some sort of action would have been taken.

It's the word "overwhelming" that I particularly take issue with, not the fact that you think there may have been some evidence.

Quite clearly such evidence as there was, was not overwhelming. If it was overwhelming the premier league would have taken action, but it wasn't so they didn't.

As I have said, they may have taken no action because clubs said "whoops, we didn't realise and we cancelled it when we did realise".

That there was a deal originally seems to me beyond any reasonable dispute.

 

[oldblade]

As I have said, they may have taken no action because clubs said "whoops, we didn't realise and we cancelled it when we did realise".

That there was a deal originally seems to me beyond any reasonable dispute.

I do not think that is the case at all because they said there was no case to answer or some similar form of words.

There may have been an intention to make such a deal prior to the transfer taking place, but the premier league found no evidence of such a deal forming part of the actual transfer. They didn't say that there had been such a deal, but it was a mistake and rectified when realised. they said three was no case to answer (or some such words).

 

[Darren]

I do not think that is the case at all because they said there was no case to answer or some similar form of words.

Do you have a link for the decision? I couldn't find one.

 

[oldblade]

Do you have a link for the decision? I couldn't find one.

No, I'm going on memory.

 

[Bladesman]

Is he still banging on about Steve Kabba?

Fact of the matter is, if it was a gentlemans agreement it did not have to be stuck to and Sheffield United had no direct influence on the player once he was sold. Had they turned round and said we are going to play him, we could do nothing about it as we did not own him.

The Tevez case was totally different.

Also one other thing always bugs me more than anything is how they were able to then register him correctly for the last four games of the season outside the emergency loan window. Very murky.

Never thought about that at the time.

Even if they registered him correctly in the end that still meant by the letter of the law he should not have been allowed to play in last 4 matches.