Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
There was no precedent for the specific type of third-party agreement in place so the FA created one and said they'd void Tevez's registration if the agreement was not removed. West Ham satisfied this demand (nobody is entirely clear on what happened at this stage).
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
Not really true. The ruling was not clear at the time of the signings and was only clarified when the fine was given out - if there had been full disclosure at the time (last day of the season), from everything I've been told the most likely scenario is - as happened recently - West Ham would be asked to have the relevant clauses removed once the Premier League reached a decision, but with no retroactive penalty.
|
Three times now lok, in increasing depth and with more examples, you have made an argument I've already replied to. Please now take the time to read the two above paragraphs, or this one-sentence summary: The Terry Brown-era board obviously acted like ****s over the whole thing but it was not obvious at the time that the two players were ineligible given the wording of the contracts and of the rules.
With regards to the 'harsh on the fans' thing: This was an odd and hugely flawed inclusion in the list of seven reasons, but other entries such as 'the rules weren't clear' and 'the culprits aren't there' are rather more sound and rather more important so I can understand why nobody is spending much time talking about them.
Oh and if you are trying to say BBC Sport avoid sensationalism and never offer speculation as fact then christ knows what you're reading. Did you know Scott Brown definitely moved to Rangers on the 11th of January? I can imagine Keith Lamb was upset, seeing how Boro definitely tabled a £5.5 million bid a few days ago. I can imagine his assertion - after Brown's agent confirmed the £4.4m signing for Celtic a few hours after the BBC announced Lamb's definite bid - that Southgate was merely looking at signing the player was born out of a desire to save face.