posted Aug 20, 2007

I think that’s one of the problems there has been a lot attributed to the pL yet we have seen no official statements other than the original ruling, yes the PL could have cleared a lot of the speculation up but in doing so I think they would open themselves up to a lot of questions about the validity of rule U18 being applied to this case in the first place. It seems to be that even now the new rules are not clear all they are saying is that ALL information must be given, but they will not confirm what they see as within or against their rules. I think this is the case that Kia is making he wants to know what the rules are before rather than after any deal is done and it looks like the PL are saying do the deal first and we will decide later if its ok or not.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 20, 2007

Sadbloke, you are right in your comments about speculation, also about McCabe and the press. The problem is that the the body in charge of everything, the premiership, refuses to divulge anything about anything.
Scudamore is meant to be acting on behalf of ALL 20 premiership clubs, not as a personal trouble shooter between WHU and MSI.
Whatever he does he does in an official capacity and this should be open to scrutiny and if necessary question.
At the moment he seems to do what he wants when he wants.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 20, 2007

Exileblade
it is obvious that all sides in this dispute have their own agenda, whilst it was not my opinion at first that Scudamore and the PL were not up to the job the longer this goes on the more I think they are failing and could have taken/ still can take a lot of the heat/speculation out of the Trevez affair with a simple statement.
The new rules are a good example in that they do nothing to clear up the situation I wonder what will happen now if a late transfer goes through on 31 August and weeks later PL decide they don’t like wording of contract , will player be allowed to continue to play, will we see more lawsuits ?
Maybe we will see a whole new PL stance when they rule on the Heinze transfer although I very much doubt it.
Lastly a question who appoints Scudamore ? do the clubs have a say ? and bry2kx I agree totally but until McCabe stops courting the press with his accusations I am afraid it will continue to rumble on.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 20, 2007

sadbloke, my recollection is that upon the formation of the premiership, the headhunters brought Scudamores name forward and he was voted into his post by the clubs at an EGM

"Richard Scudamore was appointed as Chief Executive of the Premier League in November 1999 and is responsible for negotiating the League’s broadcast and commercial contracts, as well as leading in any regulatory, legal or political matters. In the past 5 years, these contracts have realised more than £3.6 billion in revenue for distribution amongst the 20 Member Clubs, other football organisations and charities. He is also on the board of the Football Foundation – a charity funded by The FA Premier League, Football Association, Government and Sport England which has supported grass-roots and community projects worth over £300 million. These roles followed a two year period as Chief Executive of the Football League.
Prior to his career in football, Richard (aged 46) was a Senior Vice President of the Thomson Corporation based in New York responsible for their US newspaper publishing division. He also managed all advertising, sales and marketing activities for the entire company. This assignment followed a number of general management roles within Thomson, covering a range of media. Having studied law at Nottingham, he spent nine years at Yellow Pages progressing through sales and marketing, business planning and regional management to the position of Sales Director."

I imagine that he can only be gotten rid of by a vote by the clubs at an AGM or EGM

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 20, 2007

Thanks Exileblade
Sounds like he is a money man without any football credentials, cant see them getting rid if he can generate that kind of income, maybe they need to appoint someone with a footballing background or some ex pros to look after the football rules.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 21, 2007

Poor Mr Joorabchian. The nasty man at the Premier League has "tarnished" his reputation and making him appear "unprofessional".

And here I was thinking that Kia had already done a pretty good job of that by himself:

http://brazil.theoffside.com/players/how-nilmar-and-msi-misled-lyon.html

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 21, 2007

Looks like the PL are at it again making the rules up as they go along again just look at their statement on the Heinze transfer

“The hearing concluded that nature and intention of the disputed 13 June 2007 letter, especially when taken in context of verbal discussions and Manchester United FC's transfer policy, was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer.”

What do they mean by nature and intention, and that it envisages only an international transfer, sounds to me like the letter does not mention anything about an international transfer but they have decided to take Man U’s word.
Why did they not take this attitude with West Ham, as they did not ENVISAGE Trevez would be sold without consultation and it was not MSI's INTENTION to do so. So why punish west ham ?

I think its about time the PL stopped interfering with contract issues and concentrated more on the rules of the game after all these are employment issues why should anybody who has a contract of employment let a third party (i.e. the Premier League) decide who is in the right. Any dispute should be settled subject to contract law in the courts by professionals.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 21, 2007

in the end, they can be and are..
that's how Bosman happened

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 22, 2007

sadbloke,I agree with you about the premierships interpretation about Rule U18, but the REAL problem was the deceit and lying. Without that, WHU may have got away with a stern reprimand and minimal fine. Unfortunately (if true)asking about U18 and then holding back the truth brings in deliberate intent rather than just plain overenthusiasm and ignorance.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 22, 2007

Exileblade
Don’t dispute what you are saying although I think the PL would have done better to actually involve the two people who had the disputed conversations in the hearing.
It just seems to me that the PL are twisting the rules to suit themselves in the Heinze case they are willing to take into account the spirit the letter was written in and not just the content, in the Howard and Kabba case they ignore the spirit (players prevented from playing) and stick to the content of the contract, and in the west ham case they are taking the content without allowing for the spirit (third party influence never intended) that the contract may have been signed in.
I have no doubt that the PL are intent on making things as difficult as possible for third party’s to do business in the PL and not just for the good of the game, at the end of the day I think we come back down to money.
Guess we should put this to bed now, that is until we get more claims from McCabe

add comment | complain about this comment