Complaint to the FA Premier League re the Berbatov saga

[Petetheblu]

Well for me your proposed article is badly written. For example it is far too heavy on descriptive phraseology - 'rolling back duvet's', 'skidmarks', 'stench of corruption', holding noses'

And thats just in the first paragraph.

Since I don't think you have a case it also seems that in the absence of hard facts you have resorted to repetition and exaggeration. The PL is not 'desperately trying' to 'stop this scandal' given no one, including you, has any evidence of a scandal in the first place as witnessed by your own careful wording ie 'almost every media outlet suggested', 'press reports went on to suggest', 'press reports suggested' and so on. It is all supposition and hearsay. The one telling thing you say is that only two parties know the truth and since both of them are content to keep that truth to themselves it doesn't really leave you anywhere to go with this.

But back to the padding and the wooden phrasing well I would I avoid sentences like this:

'This agreement might seem to the man on the Clapham Omnibus to be little different than the same type of hidden side agreement characterised in the West Ham/Carlos Tevez affair.'

I mean seriously 'man on the Clapham Omnibus'? Its outdated and comes across as trying too hard. If you are intent on publishing an article then take an axe to it, keep it brief, to the point and from the heart.

In one sense I am knocking what you are doing because I think it is a waste of time and (ok hang me for this) I don't really care whether ManU or Spurs broke a rule or two but thats just me and others (seemingly the majority) do support what you are doing so what the hell knock yourself out and good luck.

Edit:
Oh well somewhat academic as you have already sent in the article! :)

Oh the irony!!!

Heheheheh!! :)

 

[BobKowalski]

Well for me your proposed article is badly written. For example it is far too heavy on descriptive phraseology - 'rolling back duvet's', 'skidmarks', 'stench of corruption', holding noses'

And thats just in the first paragraph.

Since I don't think you have a case it also seems that in the absence of hard facts you have resorted to repetition and exaggeration. The PL is not 'desperately trying' to 'stop this scandal' given no one, including you, has any evidence of a scandal in the first place as witnessed by your own careful wording ie 'almost every media outlet suggested', 'press reports went on to suggest', 'press reports suggested' and so on. It is all supposition and hearsay. The one telling thing you say is that only two parties know the truth and since both of them are content to keep that truth to themselves it doesn't really leave you anywhere to go with this.

But back to the padding and the wooden phrasing well I would I avoid sentences like this:

'This agreement might seem to the man on the Clapham Omnibus to be little different than the same type of hidden side agreement characterised in the West Ham/Carlos Tevez affair.'

I mean seriously 'man on the Clapham Omnibus'? Its outdated and comes across as trying too hard. If you are intent on publishing an article then take an axe to it, keep it brief, to the point and from the heart.

In one sense I am knocking what you are doing because I think it is a waste of time and (ok hang me for this) I don't really care whether ManU or Spurs broke a rule or two but thats just me and others (seemingly the majority) do support what you are doing so what the hell knock yourself out and good luck.

Edit:
Oh well somewhat academic as you have already sent in the article! :)

Oh the irony!!!

Heheheheh!! :)

Fair point :)

 

[taggarts nose]

I have now sent the final version of my article to my publisher who will ensure it gets onto the NewsNow portal shortly.

In the end I was persuaded to leave out any references to any of the six City sites; the most persuasive argument I heard was that as it was aimed at a wider audience (many City fans will have already seen this) it could be counter productive if it just red as coming from an embittered City fan - which of course I am.

So, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I present you with:



Football’s Dirty Secrets revisited: the view from Burns Towers

Panorama’s 2006 programme ‘Football’s Dirty Secrets’ rolled back the Premier League’s duvet and revealed a number of rather large skid marks on the bedsheet. Although the covers have been pulled back in place, the stench remains - despite the best efforts of Lord Stevens’ Quest enquiry team. In the meantime, the football authorities hold their collective nose and look the other way. Twas ever thus.

But now we have a fresh scandal developing that the Premier League is hoping doesn’t turn into another Ashley Colegate. This is to do with Manchester United’s pursuit of Dimitar Berbatov on transfer deadline day just gone. Almost every UK media outlet suggested Tottenham Hotspur received an acceptable bid from only one club for the player, and that club was not the one which had pursued Berbatov throughout the summer. Whilst Tottenham gave Manchester City permission to speak to the Bulgarian, their chairman Daniel Levy was widely reported as stating United did not have permission. Despite this, United’s officials, including the manager, met Berbatov, discussed and agreed personal terms with him and conducted a medical. To round things off nicely, press reports went so far as to suggest David Gill was present for at least some of these discussions; Gill of course being both United’s Chief Executive and the Premier League’s representative on the main board of the Football Association. The end result was as everyone expected; United got their man, albeit at a heavy price.

But what price? Again, press reports suggested United had been forced to come to a BSE agreement with Spurs, in so much they had to pay a Bit of Something Extra to stop the London club reporting them to the Premier League for an illegal approach for the second time in a month. Nobody but the officials of the two clubs know the full truth of this, but questions remain unanswered nonetheless.

The Premier League say they are unable to investigate the Berbatov transfer, but how can that be so? After all, Premier League rules are approved and sanctioned by the Football Association, who insist on a general tapping up rule being included by all leagues that fall under its jurisdiction - which is why one often hears of local clubs being penalised for misdemeanours of a similar nature.

However, and if you’re reading this Lord Triesman, this is the big story - Premier League clubs have seemingly got together with the Premier League board to largely opt out of their rule K3 which covers the area of ‘tapping up’ - they have agreed, without informing you, that allegations of tapping up will only be investigated if and when a club makes an official complaint. Which is why they were unable to investigate the Berbatov allegations in the first place - their secret agreement prevented them from doing so.

This agreement might seem to the man on the Clapham Omnibus to be little different than the same type of hidden side agreement characterised in the West Ham/Carlos Tevez affair. He could perhaps be forgiven for thinking the Premier League board had agreed, behind closed doors and completely off-record, only to uphold rule K3 in extreme circumstances - and in the process given the more powerful clubs carte blanche to tap up at will.

We are left in the grotesque position that if a manager appeared on Sky Sports News and brazenly admitted to tapping a player up; even perhaps going as far to boast his club had paid the other not to report the incident, there would be no prospect of a Premier League investigation as the other club had been paid off so would not therefore make a complaint. Pass the sick bucket please.

So since the Premier League has rendered themselves incapable of enforcing their own rules the Football Association have been asked to step in. Let us hope they have the moral fibre to investigate why Premier League clubs have largely been allowed to opt out from the tapping up rule that all other clubs in the English game are subject to. And also, of course, conduct an investigation into whether Manchester United made an illegal approach to Berbatov.


The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, Monty Burns.

You should team up with the great Johnny Baguette as a double act great stuff ...sorted

 

[JULES]

monty, even if you get nowhere with this I`d just like to say thanks for the entertainment, its far better reading than the usual sack mh or sell dunny.

yours in awe
jules

 

[Montgomery Burns]

I have e-mailed the link to the NewsNow article to the same national media outlets mentioned previously. I also pasted the article for them to read in case they couldn't be bothered clicking on the link to open the article. The very real risk remains however that they can't be arsed to scroll down the page.

 

[Montgomery Burns]

I now have a reply from the FA:

'Thank you for contacting The Football Association. The rules on "illegal" approaches are contained within league rules, in this case The Premier League. Any disputes between two clubs in the same league are dealt with in the first instance by the league themselves, as it has implications for the competitive balance of the league competition if clubs destabilise each other's players.

We understand that Tottenham Hotspur did lodge a complaint with The Premier League in regards to Manchester United's approach of Dimitar Berbatov but this dispute was settled between the two clubs. This is within the rights of both clubs concerned and therefore there is nothing for The FA to pursue in regards to this matter.
The FA have not received a complaint form Tottenham Hotspur in regards to this issue, therefore if you have any further comments please direct them to The Premier League'.


A reasonable man might think that the person tasked with responding to me was a youngster with learning difficulties doing some work experience. I therefore replied to the FA tonight with:

'Thank you for your reply of 28 October 2008, which I am afraid completely misses the point I was trying to make. It is difficult to make matters any clearer than what was previously set out, but given your response I will attempt to do so once more to try and help you understand the point at issue.

For the sake of clarification, let me make it crystal clear that the principle purpose of my original e-mail was to ask you to investigate the way Premier League clubs had circumvented rule K3 and how the Premier League itself had not brought what amounted to a rule change to your attention.

The matter of the Berbatov transfer was of purely secondary consideration, but in any event you seem to have failed to grasp why I mentioned this issue to you. The complaint from Tottenham that you refer to was, as I understand it, made in August, whereas my message clearly refers to the events of 1 September 2008, the transfer deadline day just gone. This of course is quite separate to the earlier events in August that we know Tottenham reported, unless of course you are suggesting Tottenham lodged a complaint about Manchester United's conduct on 1 September 2008. Perhaps you would clarify this for me.

What comes across to me from reading your reply is that you haven't properly read my original e-mail. This does me a great disservice and frankly makes your organisation look rather foolish. Would it be too much to ask that you take the trouble to read my original response again, this time taking a little more care before you respond'.

 

[Anonymous]

Credit where it's due Monty. You just won't let it lie will you? Keep up the good work.

 

[mackenzie]

Bloody give it em MB.

That last email reply from the FA was lazy to the point of smugness.

And ignore those who say such a crusade is bitter etc etc and things should be left. It isn't. It's a fundamental part of our game that fairness should be seen to be done.

Go for it.

 

[dom]

Hang on in there mate , though my worry is that their potent mix of the cretinouseness compouded by conformity and cowardice will win the day ..

 

[The Oracle]

I now have a reply from the FA:

'Thank you for contacting The Football Association. The rules on "illegal" approaches are contained within league rules, in this case The Premier League. Any disputes between two clubs in the same league are dealt with in the first instance by the league themselves, as it has implications for the competitive balance of the league competition if clubs destabilise each other's players.

We understand that Tottenham Hotspur did lodge a complaint with The Premier League in regards to Manchester United's approach of Dimitar Berbatov but this dispute was settled between the two clubs. This is within the rights of both clubs concerned and therefore there is nothing for The FA to pursue in regards to this matter.
The FA have not received a complaint form Tottenham Hotspur in regards to this issue, therefore if you have any further comments please direct them to The Premier League'.


A reasonable man might think that the person tasked with responding to me was a youngster with learning difficulties doing some work experience. I therefore replied to the FA tonight with:

'Thank you for your reply of 28 October 2008, which I am afraid completely misses the point I was trying to make. It is difficult to make matters any clearer than what was previously set out, but given your response I will attempt to do so once more to try and help you understand the point at issue.

For the sake of clarification, let me make it crystal clear that the principle purpose of my original e-mail was to ask you to investigate the way Premier League clubs had circumvented rule K3 and how the Premier League itself had not brought what amounted to a rule change to your attention.

The matter of the Berbatov transfer was of purely secondary consideration, but in any event you seem to have failed to grasp why I mentioned this issue to you. The complaint from Tottenham that you refer to was, as I understand it, made in August, whereas my message clearly refers to the events of 1 September 2008, the transfer deadline day just gone. This of course is quite separate to the earlier events in August that we know Tottenham reported, unless of course you are suggesting Tottenham lodged a complaint about Manchester United's conduct on 1 September 2008. Perhaps you would clarify this for me.

What comes across to me from reading your reply is that you haven't properly read my original e-mail. This does me a great disservice and frankly makes your organisation look rather foolish. Would it be too much to ask that you take the trouble to read my original response again, this time taking a little more care before you respond'.

Keep it up, Monty
Don't let them off the hook!