Jump to content


Photo

Points Docked?.


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Mac

Mac

    Hang the Kopites one by one on the banks of the royal blue Mers

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 13:36

I know this was only in the NOTW, so I do take it with a large pinch of salt.

There is a possible investigation to be carried out by the Premier League into Tim Howard's exclusion from the Manure game, seeing as he is an Everton player lock stock and barrel so to speak, it was only an "arrangement" between the clubs that Howard should not play.

If any irregularity is found it could lead to points being docked and a heavy fine, the article doesn't state when these would be imposed, but I have a bad feeling about this, hope it is just paper talk.

ATB

Mac
  • 0

#2 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 14:39

I would be extremely pissed off with EFC if that happened for caving in to Manures demands
  • 0

#3 Jackelz

Jackelz

    Jake da Snake

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,741 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 14:44

surely after letting of west ham they cant dock us points that would be shocking :huh:
  • 0

#4 aaron

aaron

    Everton Aren't We

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,102 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 15:06

i sure as hell hope not, i read the artical aswell, it is worrying this. hopefully we get off but i do actually think we will be minimum fined.
  • 0

#5 Adam

Adam

    Dave Hickson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,778 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 15:34

Can't understand why Everton and Manchester United can;t have a gentlemens agreement about players not playing.

United did when they signed Andy Cole and swpaped Keith Gillespie with Newcastle all those years ago.

as Jackelz said after letting West Ham of with a fine can't see anything happen and if it does then I would expect that United would get the same punishment and then all hell would break loose
  • 0

#6 mattystyrka

mattystyrka

    Denis Stracqualursi

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 15:46

I think the Premiership/FA are a making a song and dance about it because the clause was never declared. I belive there is nothing dodgey going on but Everton and ManYoo will probably receive a ticking off... nothing more.
  • 0

#7 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 15:48

At the risk of repeating myself (again)...it was wrong...I said it at the time but it was common knowledge, not underhand, nobody lied. If the FA had a problem with it all they had to do was phone and say, "You can't do that!" So I think if they try to punish us now they would look extremely foolish.

Edited by MikeO, 06 May 2007 - 15:49.

  • 0

#8 Adam

Adam

    Dave Hickson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,778 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 15:49

Everton and Manchester United have been cleared by the FA

http://home.skysport...4...tball_home
  • 0

#9 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 15:52

"Everton were free to play Tim Howard in their fixture against Manchester United had they so wished - and this has been confirmed by both clubs."



That for me makes it more suspicious and worrying, not less.
  • 0

#10 Zed

Zed

    Dave Hickson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,031 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 15:57

"Everton were free to play Tim Howard in their fixture against Manchester United had they so wished - and this has been confirmed by both clubs."



That for me makes it more suspicious and worrying, not less.


Its all about legality now mike. By Everton and Man U saying this it closes the episode, we all know there was a gentlemans aggreement in place. Nothing can be proven
  • 0

#11 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 16:05

Its all about legality now mike. By Everton and Man U saying this it closes the episode, we all know there was a gentlemans aggreement in place. Nothing can be proven


Maybe so but if I were Chelsea I'd now have a team of lawyers looking at it.
  • 0

#12 Blue 250

Blue 250

    Bob Latchford

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 16:47

On the assumption that there's any truth in a match fix!!!One would have to presume that
part of the fix was for Man Utd to play crap for the first 50mins(why would they do that,surely
we were supposed to do that bit!)........Also was Stubb's free kick aimed for just past the post?
(did the Man U player not understand,what was going on?....WE were the ones who were down
to get the own goal!)........Turner could quite easily have made a slightly less obvious clanger!
Put it like this he's never going to go on to become an actor,Panto maybe!
OK Nevilles own goal did smack of maybe get in there!!.....but hey that's life.I mean I'd like to
play for luckypool against Everton........my pass backs would test even the great Gordon Banks!
Match fix!!NEVER.....We needed the points as much as them!
  • 0

#13 Foxon

Foxon

    Andrei Kanchelskis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:05

we were free to play howard WTF no one told Moyes lol
  • 0

#14 aaron

aaron

    Everton Aren't We

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,102 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:09

moyes prob knew. maybe we had a agreement with manure that i we dont play howard, we get a certain player for a certain price come end of season?
  • 0

#15 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:12

We all know that was an agreement in place but it wasnt an official one so neither party could get in trouble over it
  • 0

#16 Foxon

Foxon

    Andrei Kanchelskis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:12

i doubt that i think man u said that u cant play him and made it all look official and moyes cba to argue so he just said ok. if howard would have played i believe we would have won.

Edited by Foxon, 06 May 2007 - 17:13.

  • 0

#17 JD in DC

JD in DC

    Mick Lyons

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:13

I don't see anything in this match-throwing talk. Win or lose that match we're still going to Europe and ManU is still winning the title, so the net result is nothing. Chelsea can't blame us for their finishing second - they can blame being held to draws at home by Aston Villa, Reading, Fulham(!), and Bolton for that. And frankly, if we wanted to throw the damn thing then why would we recall Turner to do it, which would not only muck up Wednesday's playoff push and leave them with a legitimate grievance if this was a shady play, but more importantly risk messing with the head of one of our bright young stars by ordering him to throw a match? Not only would that make no sense, but it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, and we all know that Moyes isn't stupid. No if we were going to deliberately tank it then we would've played Wright - which most people on here seemed to agree before the match would have been tantamount to conceding a loss anyway - and let him take the fall, since he's on his way out the door regardless.

Edited by JD in DC, 06 May 2007 - 17:16.

  • 0

#18 Foxon

Foxon

    Andrei Kanchelskis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:19

I don't see anything in this match-throwing talk. Win or lose that match we're still going to Europe and ManU is still winning the title, so the net result is nothing. Chelsea can't blame us for their finishing second - they can blame being held to draws at home by Aston Villa, Reading, Fulham(!), and Bolton for that. And frankly, if we wanted to throw the damn thing then why would we recall Turner to do it, which would not only muck up Wednesday's playoff push and leave them with a legitimate grievance if this was a shady play, but more importantly risk messing with the head of one of our bright young stars by ordering him to throw a match? Not only would that make no sense, but it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, and we all know that Moyes isn't stupid. No if we were going to deliberately tank it then we would've played Wright - which most people on here seemed to agree before the match would have been tantamount to conceding a loss anyway - and let him take the fall, since he's on his way out the door regardless.


Apart from pride. just think in one season we beat liverpool 3 - 0 arsenal 1 - 0 newcastle 3 - 0 Spurs 2 - 0 nearly chelsea apart from 2 great goals in the last couple of mins and then to put the icing on the cake man united champions 2 - 0.

what other teams would have done that not many.
  • 0

#19 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:19

i doubt that i think man u said that u cant play him and made it all look official and moyes cba to argue so he just said ok. if howard would have played i believe we would have won.



What are you doubting? There was obviously no official agreement otherwise the FA would have known about it, so obviously its one of those dodgy verbal agreements where there is nothing on paper. It was official to Everton that we couldnt play him, but official everywhere else. Moyes cant be arsed to argue? What planet do you live on? Manure had us over a barrel, if we hadnt have agreed then Manure would have said fine you can sign him at the end of the season, so he wouldnt have been able to play against them anyway. By the end of the season other clubs will have been sniffing around him so therefore we had no choice, it wasnt a case of cant be arsed.
  • 0

#20 Foxon

Foxon

    Andrei Kanchelskis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:23

What are you doubting? There was obviously no official agreement otherwise the FA would have known about it, so obviously its one of those dodgy verbal agreements where there is nothing on paper. It was official to Everton that we couldnt play him, but official everywhere else. Moyes cant be arsed to argue? What planet do you live on? Manure had us over a barrel, if we hadnt have agreed then Manure would have said fine you can sign him at the end of the season, so he wouldnt have been able to play against them anyway. By the end of the season other clubs will have been sniffing around him so therefore we had no choice, it wasnt a case of cant be arsed.


not you i ment this

by everton lad

moyes prob knew. maybe we had a agreement with manure that i we dont play howard, we get a certain player for a certain price come end of season?

you posted your just before mine.
  • 0

#21 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:25

Still parts of my post stand. Moyes cant be arsed to argue is one of the stupidest things youve said, he would have obviously wanted our number 1 (not shirt wise) GK in goal, he wouldnt just relent to their wishes unless he had no choice.
  • 0

#22 Foxon

Foxon

    Andrei Kanchelskis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:28

Still parts of my post stand. Moyes cant be arsed to argue is one of the stupidest things youve said, he would have obviously wanted our number 1 (not shirt wise) GK in goal, he wouldnt just relent to their wishes unless he had no choice.


hahaha
no because when a team approaches a club for a transfer they have to infrom the FA (if it is completed or not) and if manure said that everton cant play howard as a clause the FA would say why because if is completed he would be an everton player and they can choose to play him or not and then they could get done for match fixing etc. so what manure probs did was have a spoken agreement and moyes probs didnt wana argue as he has faith in turner and really wants howard.

Edited by Foxon, 06 May 2007 - 17:29.

  • 0

#23 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:32

Ive already said it would be a verbal agreement and nothing through the FA. Im sure he did argue because Moyes isnt one for being bullied, he will have discussed it at length with Ferguson and would have eventually agreed knowing that it would become difficult to sign him in the summer.
  • 0

#24 Foxon

Foxon

    Andrei Kanchelskis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:35

Ive already said it would be a verbal agreement and nothing through the FA. Im sure he did argue because Moyes isnt one for being bullied, he will have discussed it at length with Ferguson and would have eventually agreed knowing that it would become difficult to sign him in the summer.


i no but what i am sayin is that with a verbal agreement (which wouldnt stand up in a court) he could have still played howard (and not got in trouble) because you can sign a player outside of the transfer window if he is on loan to you so therefor we would have had Howard and played him and Manure could have done nothing about it.
  • 0

#25 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:36

i no but what i am sayin is that with a verbal agreement (which wouldnt stand up in a court) he could have still played howard (and not got in trouble) because you can sign a player outside of the transfer window if he is on loan to you so therefor we would have had Howard and played him and Manure could have done nothing about it.



Very true but obviously Manure have given Everton an incentive not to go against the agreement, probably something like what Aaron said.
  • 0

#26 Foxon

Foxon

    Andrei Kanchelskis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 17:38

Very true but obviously Manure have given Everton an incentive not to go against the agreement, probably something like what Aaron said.


but united could also go back on there word and we would feel like we have been raped. i have never liked verbal agreements due to this fact it should always be 100% official
  • 0

#27 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 18:11

Where did this get to be about match fixing ffs (I know not everyone's mentioned it)....too fucking ridiculous for words. In the team news for the ManU game though Howard was down as "Unavailable" on the EFC site, the BBC, Sky and wherever else you care to look. So where did that come from? Now seems it's not true and we'd have won the game if he'd played, no question.

Forget fixing, but it was giving ManU an unfair advantage and as I said I'd be in the courts Tuesday morning if I were Chelsea.
The fact that we stand to gain financially from Utd taking the title just gives Chelski more ammunition...be surprised if this was the last we heard of it.

Edited by MikeO, 06 May 2007 - 19:00.

  • 0

#28 RuffRob

RuffRob

    Peter Reid

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 19:54

I tell you something this could be well dodgy.

Buying a player and having a clause saying he won't play against the team you bought him for is said to be illegel. we don't have such a clause in the contract, yet Howard didn't play.

So as discussed there was obviously a verbal agreement - but in law a contract doesn't have to be in writing (although almost always is) a verbal agreement is a contract.

It is obviouse to anybody with half a brain what is going on, and I have to say if I was in Chelsea's shoe's I wouldn't let it lie.

The bottom line is that Howard didn't play against Utd because it was part of the deal

I tell you something, Everton should have a very good excuse why Howard was drop for this game at the ready, just in case this goes further?

Did Howard has a poor game against West Ham, to warrant being dropped?
Was he nursing an injury?
  • 0

#29 Bill

Bill

    Alex. Top player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,505 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 21:21

Dont see how there can be a problem, even if we could play him or not.
Ask Liverpool, THEY PLAYED EIGHT SECOND TEAMERS AGAINST PORTSMOUTH LAST WEEK WE COULD KICK UP ABOUT THAT IF THEY'D HAVE FINISH ABOVE US, THEY DID IT AGAIN AGAINST FULHAM YESTERDAY, MAYBE THE OTHER RELEGATED TEAMS CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT. Seems like you can play who you like without fear of retribution, it was not so long ago that teams got fined for fielding a weakened team, but thats obviously not the case anymore.

DM chose to stick to a gentlemans agreement even tho the player was officially ours, Man of his word and i think that speaks volumes for him even tho it may have cost us points.
  • 0

#30 thebluenose

thebluenose

    ALEX:Immortal Justice Lead Guitarist and backing Vocalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,007 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 21:45

im hearing everywhere that the FA have cleared us. OS and ssn. whys every1 convinced were getting points deducted
  • 0

#31 Pat

Pat

    "Former Coca Cola Yo Yo Championship Runner Up"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,335 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 21:48

The Clayton's or Agreement that never was, was to be Howard only didnt play if the title had not been decided. ( have read that many sources)

I feel we have been shafted & have played lap dog's to the master, it is all a tad murky 4 mine.

Not as Shafted as Chelsea. (Though that doesnt phase me)
  • 0

#32 Droobie

Droobie

    rednu nwod morf retroppuS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 01:46

Well.... a statement's out that we and Mancs are in the clear. Looks to be a golden handshake agreement between DM and AF.
  • 0

#33 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 11:07

Dont see how there can be a problem, even if we could play him or not.
Ask Liverpool, THEY PLAYED EIGHT SECOND TEAMERS AGAINST PORTSMOUTH LAST WEEK WE COULD KICK UP ABOUT THAT IF THEY'D HAVE FINISH ABOVE US, THEY DID IT AGAIN AGAINST FULHAM YESTERDAY, MAYBE THE OTHER RELEGATED TEAMS CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT. Seems like you can play who you like without fear of retribution, it was not so long ago that teams got fined for fielding a weakened team, but thats obviously not the case anymore.

DM chose to stick to a gentlemans agreement even tho the player was officially ours, Man of his word and i think that speaks volumes for him even tho it may have cost us points.



Hmmm...still not comfortable with this. Choosing to rest your own players for your own benefit is one thing (although highly questionable if it adversely affects other teams), but what we did was rested one of our players for another teams benefit...and our detriment...to grease the wheels of a transfer.

Would it be OK then (if the championship was still up for grabs) if Mourinho phoned DM and said,

"Listen Davie, if you rest Arteta and Lescott on Sunday we'll give you Bridge for 2m and SWP for a season on loan...nothing official like, just a gentlemans agreement, what do you say?"

Don't see the difference myself.

Edited by MikeO, 07 May 2007 - 11:10.

  • 0

#34 sheedysheedysheedy

sheedysheedysheedy

    Leon Osman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 11:10

Hmmm...still not comfortable with this. Choosing to rest your own players for your own benefit is one thing (although highly questionable if it adversely affects other teams), but what we did was rested one of our players for another teams benefit...and our detriment...to grease the wheels of a transfer.

Would it be OK then (if the championship was still up for grabs) if Mourinho phoned DM and said,

"Listen Davie, if you rest Arteta and Lescott on Saturday we'll give you Bridge for 2m and SWP for a season on loan...nothing official like, just a gentlemans agreement, what do you say?"
Don't see the difference myself.


Think I'd take it! :D
  • 0

#35 Blue4Ever

Blue4Ever

    Peter Reid

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 11:18

lol me 2 B)
  • 0

#36 Bill

Bill

    Alex. Top player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,505 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 14:59

I see what your saying Mike, but havent other clubs got more to complain about than we have. ?

I remember Warnock being called a c#nt by somebody on here, because he complained about Southgate fielding a weakened team against one of his close rivals, it seems now that he has been Vindicated, because now he is right in the Shit. But it is obvious to me that the FA could'nt give a monkeys who you pick to play, or who you dont.

If pompey had have been 3 points ahead of us we would all be calling the Redshite Rafa a twat for playing eight reserves last week, But it seems as if nobodys doing anything wrong what ever team gets picked, or whoever it is against.

The FA is at fault, nobody else.

PS ..... I'm sure somebody got fined a few years ago for fielding a weakened team, dont remember the circumstances or who it involved, but if anybody can throw some light on it i would appreciate it, cos its bugging me now as to why that rule is no longer in force.
  • 0

#37 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 18:53

I don't remember a football team ever getting fined but I know ST.Helens rugby team were fined for fielding a weakend team or docked points, im not entirely sure what the punishment was
  • 0

#38 Bill

Bill

    Alex. Top player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,505 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 19:24

I'm not sure but i think it was MAN utd, so the following year they opted out of the League Cup, so as not to have too many games, that might have influenced the FA to do away with the Rule.
  • 0

#39 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 23:19

i dont see the problem in fielding a weakend side. how often in the last games when we have nothin to play for do we play a youngster or two. league cup games, throw the kids in, give the other lads a break.
if you chose to field a weak side, and you lose draw or even win, why should you be punished? the managers job is to pick a team, if you have a european game on the tuesday whats wrong with resting a few (or 8) players on the saturday?
  • 0

#40 JD in DC

JD in DC

    Mick Lyons

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 03:10

Or 9 players, like 'pool did again this weekend in basically handing Fulham a "get out of relegation free" card. You think Curbs, Pardew, and Jewell weren't tearing their hair out when they saw the "best XI" that Rafa put out there on Saturday? But (as some of those managers have even said), those teams aren't where they are because Liverpool fielded a third-string side on Saturday - they are where they are because they haven't won enough games in the last nine months, and that's their own fault. Coming down the stretch here, Wigan's gone eight straight games (including five at home) without a win, and Charlton's gone six straight without a win. That's what's got them relegated or nearly relegated - if they take care of their own business on the field over the last 6-8 weeks then they don't have to worry about who Liverpool plays or doesn't play. If we had a big Euro match coming up and a game that meant nothing to us just a few days before it, would you want Moyes to play our big stars in the meaningless game and risk them getting fatigued and/or possibly injured, solely for Wigan's benefit? I sure wouldn't.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users