theinvisibleman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 428
I find it bizarre that the guy who represents the player is also the guy who sets the level of the fine. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PFA Back Tevez
- Thread starter Manchester_City_Blue
- Start date
I'd be interested for a journo to have a look at the offences that the PFA have approved additional fines for as well, a bit much to ask for I know but I'd love someone to have a good look at their operations and if they're acting professionally and consistently.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
I wonder who has had the word in Gordon's little ear over this and told him to stick the knife in?
It was made clear from the very start that as a club we were in constant dialogue with the PFA and there is no way we would go public with a penalty if it had not been approved in the first place imo.
Wouldn't it be fun if we had some sort of proof that the PFA and Gordon in particular had ok'd the 4 weeks?
Football politics at play here that go far beyond Carlos the twat.
It was made clear from the very start that as a club we were in constant dialogue with the PFA and there is no way we would go public with a penalty if it had not been approved in the first place imo.
Wouldn't it be fun if we had some sort of proof that the PFA and Gordon in particular had ok'd the 4 weeks?
Football politics at play here that go far beyond Carlos the twat.
That's why the PFA is unlike any other union.theinvisibleman said:I find it bizarre that the guy who represents the player is also the guy who sets the level of the fine. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
So, the original club statement and Tevez's decision letter are both consistent with the premise that the issue was that he refused to warm up, so Taylor's report of the evidence - which he's heard, we haven't - is probably right. It seems City feel that that refusal was effectively a refusal to play (and intended as such and possibly premeditated) but haven't quite got him bang to rights on that.
Does this mean Tevez accepts the two-week fine and will not appeal his "conviction" to the Board? At least that would kill off that aspect of the issue. Any case for defamation (i.e. Mancini said he'd refused to play, not just warm up) would not come near court until after the January window. While what Tevez said after the match (implying he had refused to play) may not have been accepted by the PFA as evidence of Tevez's intentions, a normal law court might be more inclined to take it as face value.
Perversely, as has been pointed out, if it's "proved" only that he refused to warm up (and it was all a big misunderstanding) then that may actually increase his transfer value (as it shows he's not that unprofessional as to refuse to play). I doubt it makes much difference, it will be a Dutch Auction in January for his services.
Longsight-memories
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 1,133
Gerry Francis Last night on his SSN slot was saying by refusing to warm up its the same as refusing to play as you must warm up before you go on the pitch.So its the same thing ,
Wonder what the PFA r would say/do if city just sent a player on the pitch without warming up,said player gets injured and is forced out of the game with no compensation ? (thinking of a smaller club here)
Wonder what the PFA r would say/do if city just sent a player on the pitch without warming up,said player gets injured and is forced out of the game with no compensation ? (thinking of a smaller club here)
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,041
No you can't leave him out with "just sporting cause". That's the important term frequently missed.cleavers said:So if he's too fat (unfit) to play, we still have to play him in 10% of our games ? Really ?Harry Godwin said:Apparently we can't let him rot either.According to FIFA regs he must play in at
least 10% of our games or he can terminate his contract and go for free.
bluelol
Well-Known Member
The PFA say there is no proof,
1 Teves said in the tv interview he was not in the right frame of mind to play through a interprater.
2 According to Sky a daily newspaper employed 2 lip readers to confirm point 1.
So apparantly this can not be evidance??
1 Teves said in the tv interview he was not in the right frame of mind to play through a interprater.
2 According to Sky a daily newspaper employed 2 lip readers to confirm point 1.
So apparantly this can not be evidance??
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,041
It had to be legally water tight.bluelol said:The PFA say there is no proof,
1 Teves said in the tv interview he was not in the right frame of mind to play through a interprater.
2 According to Sky a daily newspaper employed 2 lip readers to confirm point 1.
So apparantly this can not be evidance??
bluelol
Well-Known Member
SWP's back said:It had to be legally water tight.bluelol said:The PFA say there is no proof,
1 Teves said in the tv interview he was not in the right frame of mind to play through a interprater.
2 According to Sky a daily newspaper employed 2 lip readers to confirm point 1.
So apparantly this can not be evidance??
Water tight, Send him back to Argentina in a boat with F-----g great hole in it
Taylor just interviewed on Radio 4 Today programme:
"Club’s own evidence" (he was never told he was going to go on) – he'd warmed up first half, and start of second half. "I’m warmed up enough" – refused then changed his mind (too late).
(But subs are always warming up just in case they're needed...)
Hear it on bbc website later. If you really want to.
"Club’s own evidence" (he was never told he was going to go on) – he'd warmed up first half, and start of second half. "I’m warmed up enough" – refused then changed his mind (too late).
(But subs are always warming up just in case they're needed...)
Hear it on bbc website later. If you really want to.