posted Jan 17, 2007

i'm not a liverpool fan but do have a soft spot for them from the 80's. i'm currently living in australia so i know how they idolise their sportsmen.. even if they are useless, worthless and hopeless in the case of harry kewell! its no wonder they call him that as they wear gold 'n green! for me tim cahill is 10 times the player kewell is.. useless little kop-out that he is!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know if JM actually played for corinthians in the time frame of this rule, or was he just registered?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

i`m a follow of liverpool fc.that player must be playing active football at that age.where he is not playing so fifa must gtant liverpool permission to allow the player strat playing active football now.he only played six minutes last season.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

i`m a follow of liverpool fc.that player must be playing active football at that age.where he is not playing so fifa must gtant liverpool permission to allow the player strat playing active football now.he only played six minutes last season.

You are also an idiot. He has played 7 games so far this season for West Ham, as mentioned about a dozen times on this thread alone.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

There's always one

Or in the case of this thread, about 37.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

I think that, in this case, special dispensation should be allowed. I am a Liverpool fan, but this is not the reason I believe so. The rule was created to protect clubs from being held to ransom by players who decide they are unhappy within a few weeks and try and engineer a move elsewhere. In this case the club (West Ham) are happy to let him leave and have little or no intention of playing him again. I think the rule is a bit too "black and white" in a, normally, very "grey" FIFA world...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

In this case the club (West Ham) are happy to let him leave and have little or no intention of playing him again. I think the rule is a bit too "black and white" in a, normally, very "grey" FIFA world...


Maybe Pardew had no intention, but you can't speak for Curbishley as he hasn't been there long enough and has made no comment. Mascherano hasn't come out and said he's been told anything either way by West Ham either. If Liverpool hadn't made a move, neither would he which you would have expected him to if he was so unhappy.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

i`m a follow of liverpool fc.that player must be playing active football at that age.where he is not playing so fifa must gtant liverpool permission to allow the player strat playing active football now.he only played six minutes last season.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rubbish Liverpool's case is that he played for Corinthians last season, but their season overruns the Fifa official season. Hence in reality he has only played for 1 club this season, but technically he has played for 2. That is why they want dispensation, West Ham cannot afford to play him and hence why they want dispensation. It seems pretty reasonable to me and is hardly the first time it has happened (Jon Stead anyone?).

ps I'm a United fan.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

May have been mentioned before but Jon Stead has played for three different clubs this season.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

west ham should let mascherano go because he has not fitted in at upton park but at Anfiel i know he will become a liverpoool legend

add comment | complain about this comment