Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mac

Points Docked?.

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see a problem with playing a weakened side. I hardly think, as someone has already said, that teams can moan about one game out of 38 and try and blame where they are because of that.

 

Also, Liverpool wouldn't have done that if it wasn't neccessary, they are still fighting for third place so it was a gamble on their part which didn't pay off.

 

Plus, I'm confused with all this talk of a weakened side, of course it wasn't Liverpools best 11 but it was hardly a weak side. I could only see 2 players (youngsters who need the first team experience) who probably haven't played more many games for the club and also Robbie Fowler isn't the man he used to be. So that's a maximum of three players I see that aren't good enough of being in the strong Liverpool line up. Think the lesser clubs are just clutching at straws trying to shift the blame to other clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but where do you Draw the line, if United play the youth team on Sunday and West Ham win, Wigan or Sheffield go Down, :o do they have a right to complain, i'm fookin sure they do.

 

It makes no difference if its the 1st week or the last week of the season, to give 3 points away to any team by not fielding your strongest side is totally out of order and should be stamped on now.

 

We have been at the wrong end of the table on many occasions, are you peeps telling me that if we had have gone Down because somebody did that to us, you wouldnt feel aggrieved, I sure as fook would have been,

Its not playing the game if you dont do all you can to win every match.

 

Ive said it before and i'll say it again ...... if these clubs complain that they are playing too many games and having to rest their players the answer is simple, dont enter all the competitions, when are the FA going to stop Falling over themselves to help out these money grabbing clubs, its all about greed, and wanting more money.

 

SO STOP FOOKIN COMPLAINING WHEN YOU HAVE TO PLAY MORE GAMES.

 

(i went off on one there ..... sorry)

 

Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had gone down a couple of years ago because a team, say Arsenal, fielded a weakened team then of course I'd be pissed at Arsenal and probably would be for a long time. However, the fault isn't completely Arsenal's. It's the whole season that determines if a team goes down not the last game of the season.

 

Now put the other shoe on...if we were in the CL final and DM played our strongest team in the Premier League and say one of the star players gets injured, would you not be pissed that DM decided to play our best team in a match that didn't mean that much. Or say we were in Fulhams situation, and we played a weakened Arsenal side would you still be moaning.

 

If Man U did it against West Ham then fair enough imo. The youngsters needs first team experience. So you need to test young players would you not agree? Surely when we started playing Anichebe and Vaughn they weren't our strongest players available so would that mean teams have a right to complain about us?

 

Still think my point about Liverpool only playing two youngsters stands. The other players are hardly weak players so can't see why other teams can complain about Liverpools selection against Fulham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my post again, it doesnt matter if its the first or last game, by not playing your strongest side and doing all you can to try and win, is against all the ethics of the game, and to be honest is rather suspect.

The FA made a ruling once and fined a team for doing just that, but i think they bowed down to the ""Big Clubs"" because it seems to have been forgotten about.

 

 

"If Man U did it against West Ham then fair enough imo."

 

 

I think you would see it a bit differently if we were in Wigan or Sheffields position this weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but at the beginning of the season if a team played a few youngsters nothing was said, it's just that it's a big deal now. Don't recall anything being said earlier in the season...why all the talk now?

 

As I said, of course I'd be pissed off if we were in Wigans position but I still stand by the fact that teams have to look out for themselves rather than other teams. I don't see it against the ethics of the game as they aren't going out to lose, and Liverpool didn't want to lose as now third place is still up for grabs. Teams have to test out youngsters at some stage or another, people need to be giving chances to prove themselves if they haven't had many games. When the season is wrapped up, like Man Utds is, it's the ideal time for them to test out youngsters. Maybe not play a complete 11 but certainly try out a few players to see if they are good enough and give possible future 1st teamers some vital experience. If they can't do it now, when can they do it?

 

So how would you feel if a star player for us got injured in what is essentially a nothing game when we have a CL final in a couple of weeks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its obvious that you and i see it differently, we played weakened teams in the Carling cup, and i think it was wrong.

We had to bring on Cahill and Arteta late on against Peterborough to win it, if we had lost it because we didnt play a full strength side from the start i'd have been well pissed off.

 

But you have your view and i have mine, so be it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was going to use the Peterborough example...

 

Anyway, the cup weakened side is a totally different issue. I think it's more disrespectful to field a weak side against a low league club but I'm not going into that topic :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read my post again, it doesnt matter if its the first or last game, by not playing your strongest side and doing all you can to try and win, is against all the ethics of the game

 

Mind if I throw a few hypotheticals at you? Since you said that, I'm curious about your perspective on these scenarios now. :)

 

Question #1: What's your view on teams that go into games against ManU or Chelsea intending to play 90 minutes of negative football and come out of it with a draw. Are you suggesting that those teams are being unethical by trying to steal 1 point instead of opening it up and attacking and going all out to "win," when they'd probably lose by 4 or 5 if they did that?

 

Question #2: Which would you consider more ethical from a team: going balls to the wall trying to win every single game and finishing tenth because their first string has nothing left in the gas tank by April, or pacing themselves to a fifth place finish because they played their guys strategically all season and didn't always use their best available 11?

 

Question #3: Hypothetical scenario. Let's say you have two league games coming up, against Team A on Thursday and Team B on Sunday. Your star striker is coming back from an injury and the team doctor tells you that he can only play in one of those two games - he could be selected on Thursday, but then there's no chance he'll be cleared to play on Sunday. The Thursday game might affect the title chase (which you aren't involved with), but means nothing to your team, while the Sunday game is a critical match against one of the teams you're competing with for a spot in Europe. So which game do you play him in - the first one that he's available for, or the one that's more important for your team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JD, i dont want to get into another long and tiresome debate, suffice to say you have answered the 1st question yourself.

 

""Are you suggesting that those teams are being unethical by trying to steal 1 point instead of opening it up and attacking and going all out to "win," when they'd probably lose by 4 or 5 if they did that?""

 

Taking one point from any of the "Big Teams" rather than being thrashed 5 - 0 is a victory of sorts, and was probably well earned.

 

For the second Hypothetical question, i would refer you to Wigans Performances of last season, and Readings performances of this season, both teams where short odds favourites to go back down, but they played without fear and attacked every team they played, and got their rewards for doing so.

 

The third question is nonsense, why can he only play in one of those games, is he fit or not ??

if he's fit enough to play in the first one, why cant he play in both.

 

Think i've said enough on this subject, each and every member will have views that differ, thats fair enough,

but to explain them in depth to every Tom, Dick or Harry who comes up with another hypothetical scenario can become rather tiresome.

 

Cheers

 

Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to ignite another debate, just trying to get a little clarification on your position, so I know where you're coming from.

 

And regarding #3 it isn't complete nonsense. We often have scenarios like that in American sports. Not exactly like the one I proposed, but you might see a manager over here who has an aging star on the team rest him sometimes when there is too short a turnaround between games (like having games scheduled two nights in a row, which sometimes happens with basketball and hockey and is routine in baseball) and he can't recover quickly enough. Reasons vary - he may have some kind of chronic injury like arthritis or tendinitis or a bad back that doesn't respond well to being asked to play two in a row, or he may not have as much stamina as the younger guys and the manager thinks that giving him days off will keep him fresher and healthier for the end of the season and (with our sports) the playoffs. Or in hockey, for instance, it's standard practice when a team has games on consecutive nights to play their first string goaltender in only one of the two games - usually against the stronger of the two opponents - and let his backup play the other one, simply because the position is so demanding. That's why I was curious to know more about your take, because I'm coming from a different sports culture with a totally different perspective on the issue, but also one where the seasons are much longer (82 games for basketball and hockey, 162 for baseball, plus playoffs in every sport) and games are played more frequently.

 

Edit: I just saw this article where SAF talks about the issue of resting players in relation to ManU's games with Chelsea and West Ham this week. Just thought I'd pop it up here since it touches on some of the points already raised in this thread.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/preview?id=215428&cc=5901

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to join this debate!......but just as a piece of history(fairly recent),because it's our

proud claim"if you know your history"......Any way 26th May 1985,championship already in

the bag,and Everton were faced with an away game against relegation threatened Coventry.

With I guess an eye on an up and coming cup final we played what could be described as

perhaps not our best team....and by reports at the time seems even the established players

didn't exactly give it 100%!!Result Coventry 4 (champions)Everton1.

That's half the story,because as a result of this result Coventry were safe,BUT poor old Norwich

City were relegated...AND living in Norfolk some Norwich fans still remember that Coventry

result and hate us for that!!!!!

Dirty game not playing your best team!but will always happen,even we've done it!

 

I can remember Howard Kendall saying he hoped Chelsea wouldn't be wearing their FLIP FLOPS

when they played Bolton,when our survival depended on Bolton losing!!To Chelsea's credit,and

remembering they had a cup final coming up....they did us the huge favor of beating the ever

physical Bolton.In my mind a bit of a Kendall master stroke and not a small bit of Chelsea pride!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×