Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
Fair enough, was trying to get my head around the amount they were claiming, makes sense i guess.
Still don't agree with the decision though 
|
Jodi_the_g
Member
Registered: 7th Aug 01
Location: Washington D.C
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by jr
points, but yes Jodi, the FA should have banned tevez, they didnt, they said he needed to be installed on a proper loan contract, which is what we did, hence him playing in the last 4 games
No I agree with you, if he was not banned then why not pick him.
Sheff Utd have every reason to be pissed off but more so with the weak administation of the FA and not WHU.
5.5 million is a lot of money to anyone.
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
not aimed at anyone btw, but, and my argument will allways be this
WE DID NOT DIRECTLY SEND DOWN SHEFF UTD
it was a matter of who got most points over 38 games
IMO everything said doesnt stand, because we played no direct involment in there downfall
watford and west brom ? have never said anything about this matter ? and they both went down
[Edited on 23-09-2008 by jr]
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
also, just so people are aware
Richard Scudamore's letter to the FA chairmen in May 2007 he made it clear that the Premier League was the only league to have such a rule on 3rd party interference. The Football League didn't have such a rule nor did FIFA. The Premier League had never had to enforce the rule before. He also said that it was a completely different offence to playing an unregistered or suspended player and that comparing points deductions handed out for these misdemeanours was inappropriate
|
