tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
mcnab-sees-red said:tolmie's hairdoo said:The Pink Panther said:Tevez was available for a couple of weeks after the BM match, so no one can complain he was still being paid.
However since he's gone AWOL, we haven't paid him have we?.
He's been fined six weeks money and some kind of wage agreement has been reached along the lines of...
Kia - "My client still expects to be paid his basic salary whilst he's playing golf in Argentina"
City - "If Mr Tevez refuses to train and make himself available for selection, he can boil his bum. We aint paying him a bean"
What do Tevez's advisors mean when they say a wage agreement has been made? It really could be the scenario above
Add the six million in bonuses City have refused to pay him, which must have been budgeted for, and we're quids in, to the fact of we can accept a £20m transfer fee as long as Tevez agrees not to pursue any outstanding monies he believes are owed
If he truly isn't motivated by cash, this is an easy and simple resolution to the issue
You raise a very valid issue here, one that goes to the heart of the revelations.
If a wage agreement has been reached between the two parties, then why did Tevez appeal against it?
And why does he still have until Jan 30th (convenient uh!) to go before Premier League appeal?
If there was an agreement to waive/fine Tevez, then there would have been no need for City to reconvene an appeal panel on Dec 21st to uphold it.
All is not what is seems and both sides are being flexible with the truth.
Probably gave him the findings of his original appeal on jan 2nd after consideration and the Christmas break. 28 days to appeal is the norm from there.
Don,t really see the flexibility in the city statement.
Truth is possibly somewhere in the middle. But the original appeal was at the start of December?
It was upheld on the 21st - the 28 day window appeal doesn't apply in any of those timelines.