PFA Back Tevez

[becomingparanoid]

I am surprised that anyone is surprised. That is what the PFA is there for, just like any union.

They are not the problem, Kia fucking knob head Joorabchian is the problem. He seriously needs to be reined in. He is just like a puppet master controlling the strings. He has got rid of Cook now he is going for Mancini. He wheels out Hughes as a puppet at will. He has already used Onuoha. That only leaves NDJ. Has anyone else noticed how unhappy Nige is looking recently and his contract negotiations haven't gone well. I wonder why?

I am beginning to believe that if the Tevez camp persist in trying to defend the indefensible and even attempt to go on the attack the Sheik will decide to let him rot for the rest of his contract and effectively ruin his football career.

 

[cleavers]

People need to open their minds to the possibility that Carlos didn't refuse to play and refused to warm up again, and in the confusion of a busy noisy touchline this was misinterpreted by the manager. Still a serious offence but not as serious as a refusal to play. Hence the PFA statement and the very carefully worded club statement that falls short of accusing him of refusing to play.

It makes no difference what he did or didn't refuse to do, or what Mancini did or didn't understand/misunderstand.

The simple fact is that an investigation found him guilty on 5 counts, good enough for me, no need to open my mind.

Guilty, f**k off from our club, easy.

In the context of the PFA statement that the club can't fine him 4 weeks wages because he didn't refuse to play then yes it does make a difference, and since that's what this thread was about then of course it's relevant.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, the club stated that he was found guilty of 5 counts of misconduct, for which he was found guilty.

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.

2. An obligation to undertake such other duties and to participate in such other activities as are consistent with the performance of the player’s duties and as are reasonably required of him.

3. An obligation to comply with and act in accordance with all lawful instructions of any authorised official of the Club.

4. An obligation to observe the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA, the FA Rules, the League Rules, the Code of Practice and the Club rules, including but not limited to breach of Rule E3(1) of the FA Rules (obligation on the player all times to act in the best interests of the game and not act in any manner which is improper or which brings the game into disrepute).

5. An obligation not to knowingly or recklessly do anything or omit to do anything which is likely to bring the Club or the game of football into disrepute or cause the player or the Club to be in breach of the Rules (as defined in the contract) or cause damage to the Club.

 

[mackenzie]

As a former union official I had to back and defend members & other situations even if it was personally distasteful to me. Any disagreements would be hammered out behind closed doors. That's the way it works. I don't particularly like Gordon Taylor personally but he's a union official and I'd expect him to back his members publicly. Once you accept something that isn't quite in accordance with the agreed rules then you set a precedent for the future.

The criticism I'd have is that you need to be careful that you choose the right battle to fight. If the PFA is saying it doesn't believe Tevez refused to play, then they need to be very sure of their ground. I would assume they'd seen the evidence presented at the club inquiry but if they haven't then they're fighting the wrong battle. If they were to fight the size of the fine on its own, then they'd have a better case in my opinion. But I also know that negotiators often initially take extreme positions when they've got a less extreme fall-back position.

As a former union rep who went to the TUC union 'school' in Manchester in the 1980's I can confirm this is how we were taught to negotiate too.
It could even be argued that PFA intervention may be better for City, as they are more likely to tell Tevez the bare facts of likely success or not. Certainly moreso than a fancy lawyer whose primary interest could be spinning it out for as long as possible.

 

[firthy81]

Don't see the problem. This will help clear his name get his stock back up so we can sell him for a healthy transfer fee in January.

Sure there will be statments from both City and Tevez before the transfer window to clear the air.

 

[cleavers]

Has anyone else noticed how unhappy Nige is looking recently and his contract negotiations haven't gone well. I wonder why?

He looked perfectly happy last night to me, in fact at the final whistle he was doing the "not worthy" arm motions to all the City fans with a very big smile on his face.

 

[mancunial]

no surprise there. the pfa exists to protect & support its members. plus gordon taylor is a bitter spiteful rag who hates city. (he was one of the first to come out with the "city are ruining football" bollocks after the adug takeover).

Spot on he was a total tit over the kaka saga, then said the ronaldo one was great, hypocritical Tameside rag

 

[mad4city]

Yeah, slag off the unions.

When you're finished slag off SKY & the Premier League's members (including City) for not having enough Saturday 3pm kick offs.

Then wobble your idiot head as you try to figure out which of the above entities is/are responsible for bringing you the concept of the weekend and which is/are part of the market-driven system that's trying to take it away from you (not to mention future generations).


Or...





For the slow ones, down the back of the class. It's not hard to grasp:

a)Tevez is wrong.
b)Taylor is doing his job.
c)there is no contradiction between points a & b

 

[Bunk]

Personally I treat refusing to warm up and refusing to play as one and the same. That is to say that by refusing to warm up, he effectively refused to play. A player cannot (or at least should not) play unless he is warmed up. It’s kind of like if your son said "Dad, I’m happy to go to school today, but I refuse to get up and get dressed". Obviously the kid cannot go to school bollock-naked, therefore, he cannot go to school.

 

[SWP's back]

As a former union official I had to back and defend members & other situations even if it was personally distasteful to me. Any disagreements would be hammered out behind closed doors. That's the way it works. I don't particularly like Gordon Taylor personally but he's a union official and I'd expect him to back his members publicly. Once you accept something that isn't quite in accordance with the agreed rules then you set a precedent for the future.

The criticism I'd have is that you need to be careful that you choose the right battle to fight. If the PFA is saying it doesn't believe Tevez refused to play, then they need to be very sure of their ground. I would assume they'd seen the evidence presented at the club inquiry but if they haven't then they're fighting the wrong battle. If they were to fight the size of the fine on its own, then they'd have a better case in my opinion. But I also know that negotiators often initially take extreme positions when they've got a less extreme fall-back position.

As a former union rep who went to the TUC union 'school' in Manchester in the 1980's I can confirm this is how we were taught to negotiate too.
It could even be argued that PFA intervention may be better for City, as they are more likely to tell Tevez the bare facts of likely success or not. Certainly moreso than a fancy lawyer whose primary interest could be spinning it out for as long as possible.

You were a union rep eh? Well knock me down with a feather.

 

[YourBirdCanSing22]

People need to open their minds to the possibility that Carlos didn't refuse to play and refused to warm up again, and in the confusion of a busy noisy touchline this was misinterpreted by the manager. Still a serious offence but not as serious as a refusal to play. Hence the PFA statement and the very carefully worded club statement that falls short of accusing him of refusing to play.

How many times? Whether he:

- Refused his manager's request to play
or
- Refused his manager's request to warm up in preparation to play

It's effectively the same thing.

Set your watches - by this time tomorrow, Kia and/or Paul McCarthy will have been on Sky & TalkSport, and have paid for/placed stories in the Mirror & The Mail, telling the world how this "proves" Tevez has been harshly treated.

This is almost over, but not quite yet.