Points Docked?.

[Mac]

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

[Romey 1878]

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

[J*A*C*K*E*L*Z]

surely after letting of west ham they cant dock us points that would be shocking

[aaron]

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.

[Adam]

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

[mattystyrka]

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.

[MikeO]

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 May 6, 2007 by MikeO

[Adam]

Everton and Manchester United have been cleared by the FA

 

http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=4...tball_home&

[MikeO]

"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.

[Zed]

"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

[MikeO]

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.

[Blue 250]

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!

[Foxon]

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

[aaron]

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?

[Romey 1878]

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

[Foxon]

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 May 6, 2007 by Foxon

[zequist]

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 May 6, 2007 by JD in DC

[Foxon]

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.

[Romey 1878]

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.

[Foxon]

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.

[Romey 1878]

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.

[Foxon]

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 May 6, 2007 by Foxon

[Romey 1878]

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.

[Foxon]

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.

[Romey 1878]

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.

[Foxon]

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

[MikeO]

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 May 6, 2007 by MikeO

[RuffRob]

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?

[Bill]

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.

[thebluenose]

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