PFA Back Tevez

[Gelsons Dad]

I think the real story is that the wording of the first charge which is implicit rather than explicit was probably agreed between the club and the PFA with the understanding that it was strong enough to justify the fine. Then Taylor has backtracked on that understanding for whatever reason. If this is the case I hope we go after Taylor properly.

 

[cibaman]

I thought it was 100% clear that Tevez refused to come on and I couldnt hear a word that was said. But I'm certain he refused to play by virtue of having watched thousands of identical situations when substitutions are made. The manager doesnt draft a letter to the player informing him that his presence his needed. He doesnt usually walk up to him and request that his services are required. Its all done by gestures, nods, the wave of an arm etc.

All of that made it clear to me that Tevez refused to play, unfortunately it doesnt stand up in a disciplinary situation.

 

[moomba]

So the PFA (i.e. Gordon) prefer Tevez's account of what happened in Munich to Mancini's account. Ergo the PFA (i.e. Gordon) is calling Mancini a liar. Maybe in the light of the Tevez post match interview Mancini should contemplate a suit for defamation against the PFA (i.e. Gordon).

It's the club that failed to find sufficient proof to charge Tevez with refusing to play. Apparently not a single one of Mancini's own staff could be found to support his version of events. In the light of this it's hardly surprising that the PFA has adopted this stance.

He got found guilty, taking into account all the evidence of this:

1. An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official.

Don't believe Kia's articles in the Sun and Mirror, I severely doubt he would have been found guilty if it was all made up.

 

[hgblue]

So the PFA (i.e. Gordon) prefer Tevez's account of what happened in Munich to Mancini's account. Ergo the PFA (i.e. Gordon) is calling Mancini a liar. Maybe in the light of the Tevez post match interview Mancini should contemplate a suit for defamation against the PFA (i.e. Gordon).

It's the club that failed to find sufficient proof to charge Tevez with refusing to play. Apparently not a single one of Mancini's own staff could be found to support his version of events. In the light of this it's hardly surprising that the PFA has adopted this stance.

He got found guilty, taking into account all the evidence of this:

1. An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official.

Don't believe Kia's articles in the Sun and Mirror, I severely doubt he would have been found guilty if it was all made up.

Of course he refused to participate, and of course it wasn't all made up. I'm not disputing that. Refusing to participate and refusing to play are not the same thing, and it's my belief that this wording was chosen deliberately by the club because of it's ambiguity. You can bet your life that if the club had found him guilty of refusing to play the club statement would have said so clearly.

 

[york away to this!]

it's the tone of taylor's comments that stick in my throat. Perhaps the PFA are duty bound to support players, perhaps they do so sometimes through gritted teeth, though it's the drone of taylor in that kind of "nah, nanny nah nahhhhh..... we're right and yourrrr wronnnnnnnnng" way that makes we want to throttle the little wanker. Can we sue the PFA for immoral behaviour in blatantly supporting the unsupportable liar?

Didn't he say in his statement 'Carlos was desperate to play'? Oh just fuck off Gordon.

he was rattling on about how tevez had warmed up in the first half and at the start of the second, he'd warmed up for the two previous games but didn't get on the pitch........!!! so how is this relevant? The **** was a sub. he wasn't used for the previous two games but was needed in this one - and refused to do as he was told. do all subs have to be used? - do all subs have to play? - or do all subs run up and down when they're told and come and get ready and play IF they are told!

Taylor is blatantly using the fact that a substitute did not get on the pitch for the last two games as a contributory factor in defending a refusal to warm up (and in doing so get prepared to play and perhaps, woe and behold, actually play) in the next.

Where does Taylor sit on goalkeeper subs????

we need to have him kidnapped and buried in the desert up to his neck.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: Re: PFA Back Tevez

I was disgusted by that weasel Taylor. instead of just giving the facts he tried to justify Tevez' actions and then said that he was only there to state the legal position. I think that the club fined Tevez based on a serious misconduct charge (ie refusing to play) but realised that the consequence would be releasing him. better to leave the twat in the stiffs for the next three years IMHO

But Taylor is saying he wasn't charged with refusing to play hence his refusal to agree to the higher fine. So was he or wasn't he? That's why I think City have shot themselves in the foot a bit.

We all know he refused to play but City obviously do not have strong enough and legally water tight evidence to charge him with it. Hence the list of 5 things they could come up with.

 

[the goats backside]

I think the real story is that the wording of the first charge which is implicit rather than explicit was probably agreed between the club and the PFA with the understanding that it was strong enough to justify the fine. Then Taylor has backtracked on that understanding for whatever reason. If this is the case I hope we go after Taylor properly.

You might find that Taylor was warned he might get sued by Tezez unless he fully backed him

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Dissapointed in taylor,he's not welcome back in ashton again!

 

[moomba]

Of course he refused to participate, and of course it wasn't all made up. I'm not disputing that. Refusing to participate and refusing to play are not the same thing, and it's my belief that this wording was chosen deliberately by the club because of it's ambiguity. You can bet your life that if the club had found him guilty of refusing to play the club statement would have said so clearly.

Personally I think they are the same thing. And my reading of charge 1 is that it's fairly clear that the club consider that he refused to play.

 

[Longsight-memories]

How come the could not fine him two weeks on each charge?