This is all very strange,how the hell did we agree to it? I don't think it would have made a blind bit of difference to the result saturday anyway.So,clutching at straws......BOOOOOO throw the toe rags out of the cup!!
He absolutely has a point. I don't understand why we agreed to it or why it was even necessary - if us and Luton agreed on the transfer, what business was it of Sheff Utd?
Did Luton have a recall clause? If not they and we would have needed their consent for the transfer to go through and as such a simple gentleman's agreement is not too surprising. Loads od teams do it he is a bitter Hammer
the article is all about 3rd party ownership and where it could lead to - just pointing our case out to show how daft it all is.
we bought a player from Luton - and sheff utd have a say in which games he can & can't play in ! Madness. Tottlaly different to say, the dean Buton thing, where we bought him from Sheff wed and so they can ask (or we agree) that he wont play in any forthcoming fixtures between the two clubs.
does that mean we can ask Birmingham not to play Bouzza when the play us at the Valley in April ?
I thought that it was a strange arrangement when I read Ledge's original post. Shame Samuels is not outraged on our behalf, rather than using his press power to forward the cause of his own team.
I expect what will happen is that Sheff Utd will avoid any punishment if they argree to drop the WHU thingy, Charlton and Luton will be up in front of the beak, we will be thrown out of next years cup and Luton will be deducted 50 points...
[cite]Posted By: golfaddick[/cite]
we bought a player from Luton - and sheff utd have a say in which games he can & can't play in ! Madness. Tottlaly different to say, the dean Buton thing, where we bought him from Sheff wed and so they can ask (or we agree) that he wont play in any forthcoming fixtures between the two clubs.
?
I don't even agree with these either - at the end of the day the club want to sell the player why should they bloody care if he plays against them. Restiction of trade I say.
Okay, on the OS Charlton clarify their side of the deal, and agreed not to play Spring 'if Sheff Utd released him from his loan".
Luton 'owned' the player but apparently he was still registered to Sheff Utd at the time of our approach/negotiation, which might mean the regulation was not broken.
The question is, were Sheff Utd a 3rd party at the time of negotiation?
If deemed to be so, then the regulation has been broken. despite what the OS says.
I'd have more respect for his argument if he actually came clean and mentioned West Ham in the article rather than try and pretend it's about something other than that.
[cite]Posted By: Les Addicks[/cite]I'd have more respect for his argument if he actually came clean and mentioned West Ham in the article rather than try and pretend it's about something other than that.
Indeed. And whatever "crimes" Sheff Utd may or may not have committed West Ham are guilty. They pleaded guilty and were found guilty.
The only arguments now did the punishment fit the crime and did they continue to beak the rules after the ruling was made.
Even if Sheff Utd were a 3rd party, which is debatable, there is a world of difference between ONE FA Cup tie which impacts only on the two clubs involved and a player (s) playing a full season in the Premiership which impacts on every club in that division.
Substance over form would surely come into play.
The journo is being disingenuous comparing the two situations.
That said West Ham have friends in high places so the excuse is there to let them off their £30 million.
Football smells more like a sewer every time I open a newspaper.
[cite]Posted By: stop shouting[/cite]If Parky was mug enough to agree to this clause, where's the problem. Surely we are as culpable as Sheff U if this clause is against FA rules.
I can't imagine Parky writes the various clauses in the contracts!
This is the Martin Samual that is a West Ham fan, and on the Sunday Supplement has an ego as big as PArdew. Why does he mention the deal with Spring and Kabba but not the complete whitewash of the two Argies, and the delayed paperwork, the points deduction that never happened, the fact that one of Curbs best mates in football is Fergie and what happened on the last game of that said season againest all odds who did West Ham beat to stay up? I would be more concerned about his clubs dealings in transfers rather than trying to deflect the situation.
Mr Samuals clearly wears blinkers, and to certain extent abuses his colum by defending West Hams transfer activities and pointing fingers at Sheff U in the Kabba deal, as well as Everton in the Howard transfer from Man U, where as the most corrupt transfer in all time was from West Ham.
People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones Mr Samual
But he ain't letting go of it. The following quote is a small extract from Martin Samuels Column in the Daily Mail ( and since you ask, it was the only 'news'paper available in the cafe)
'West Ham were wrong over Tevez. I have stated this many times................. What changed however, as I began looking at the way the loan system was being abused with gentlemen's agreements and deals not in writing (there is no mention of SU's side arrangement with Charlton Athletic over Matthew Spring in the papers lodged at the Football league, which seems strange)'
The FA have given Sheffield United until today to explain their role in Matthew Spring's omission from last month's FA Cup fixture with Charlton.
The Addicks, who signed the midfielder from Luton during the transfer window, were also asked to provide evidence detailing why Spring's failure to appear against his former club did not break rules outlawing third party interference.
Spring spent the first-half of the season on loan at the Blades before the agreement was terminated to enable him to sign a permanent contract at The Valley.
The Blades have denied any wrongdoing.
An FA spokesman said: "We've asked both Sheffield United and Charlton for their thoughts."
I think its a good thing, he'll be fresh for the Palace game tomorrow night; I might even bet on a 1-0 win and Spring scoring the winner. (any idea of the odds ?).
Comments
http://www.charltonlife.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23230
Ha ha have to agree and compensation a rough figure of £11.5m would be nice
the article is all about 3rd party ownership and where it could lead to - just pointing our case out to show how daft it all is.
we bought a player from Luton - and sheff utd have a say in which games he can & can't play in ! Madness. Tottlaly different to say, the dean Buton thing, where we bought him from Sheff wed and so they can ask (or we agree) that he wont play in any forthcoming fixtures between the two clubs.
does that mean we can ask Birmingham not to play Bouzza when the play us at the Valley in April ?
I expect what will happen is that Sheff Utd will avoid any punishment if they argree to drop the WHU thingy, Charlton and Luton will be up in front of the beak, we will be thrown out of next years cup and Luton will be deducted 50 points...
I don't even agree with these either - at the end of the day the club want to sell the player why should they bloody care if he plays against them. Restiction of trade I say.
Okay, on the OS Charlton clarify their side of the deal, and agreed not to play Spring 'if Sheff Utd released him from his loan".
Luton 'owned' the player but apparently he was still registered to Sheff Utd at the time of our approach/negotiation, which might mean the regulation was not broken.
The question is, were Sheff Utd a 3rd party at the time of negotiation?
If deemed to be so, then the regulation has been broken. despite what the OS says.
Indeed. And whatever "crimes" Sheff Utd may or may not have committed West Ham are guilty. They pleaded guilty and were found guilty.
The only arguments now did the punishment fit the crime and did they continue to beak the rules after the ruling was made.
IMHO No and Yes.
Substance over form would surely come into play.
The journo is being disingenuous comparing the two situations.
That said West Ham have friends in high places so the excuse is there to let them off their £30 million.
Football smells more like a sewer every time I open a newspaper.
If it has, then impartial and appropiate action must be seen to have taken place.
Anything else is corruption made manifest.
One is manslaughter one is murder.
You don't get the same sentence for both crimes.
Your analogy, Len, is one of intent and purely subjective.
I'm only begging the question, has the rule been broken in the first place?
And if so, then impartial and appropiate action must be seen to have taken place.
I can't imagine Parky writes the various clauses in the contracts!
Agreed though, this is all very odd
Mr Samuals clearly wears blinkers, and to certain extent abuses his colum by defending West Hams transfer activities and pointing fingers at Sheff U in the Kabba deal, as well as Everton in the Howard transfer from Man U, where as the most corrupt transfer in all time was from West Ham.
People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones Mr Samual
'West Ham were wrong over Tevez. I have stated this many times................. What changed however, as I began looking at the way the loan system was being abused with gentlemen's agreements and deals not in writing (there is no mention of SU's side arrangement with Charlton Athletic over Matthew Spring in the papers lodged at the Football league, which seems strange)'
The FA have given Sheffield United until today to explain their role in Matthew Spring's omission from last month's FA Cup fixture with Charlton.
The Addicks, who signed the midfielder from Luton during the transfer window, were also asked to provide evidence detailing why Spring's failure to appear against his former club did not break rules outlawing third party interference.
Spring spent the first-half of the season on loan at the Blades before the agreement was terminated to enable him to sign a permanent contract at The Valley.
The Blades have denied any wrongdoing.
An FA spokesman said: "We've asked both Sheffield United and Charlton for their thoughts."
I think its a good thing, he'll be fresh for the Palace game tomorrow night;
I might even bet on a 1-0 win and Spring scoring the winner. (any idea of the odds ?).