Tevez backs down ?

[r.soleofsalford]

BUT......


gross misconduct. sack
sack. free agent

oh dear.

as someone said earlier, he is merely a prawn in a wider game - or is that a little too fishy?

No, we can sack him but still hold his registration so he can't play for another club (even a pub team) until the registration runs out. I'm pretty sure we can also sue him personally for loss of earning that a transfer would have fetched

Correct..theoretically we could sue him for his transfer fee

please let this come to pass

 

[remoh]

The Club dropped the allegation of refusal to play well in advance of the Inquiry and no mention is made of it in the findings.

Can you point out any City statement that says what he was originally charge with and what he was eventually found guilty of?

Because I've read all the City statements on Tevez and they never said what he was charged with so how can you know that a charge was dropped?

The charge of refusing to play was laid by Mancini immediately after the game, on TV, and then dropped very publicly by the Club later.

-- Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:06 pm --

How could he be guilty of refusing to participate if he was not asked to??

He was found guilty of not participating, He is not accused of refusing as you have claimed here and for the umpteenth time, he could not refuse to play if he was not asked to do so. He was guilty of refusing to warm up and in breach of contract on that basis.
The Club dropped the allegation of refusal to play well in advance of the Inquiry and no mention is made of it in the findings.

You must be boring yourself by now.

Refusing to participate is plenty enough. However you want to rationalise with yourself.

Yes, refusal to participate is definitely enough. That's never been denied.

Now: less of your cheek, please!

-- Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:08 pm --

He was found guilty of not participating, He is not accused of refusing as you have claimed here and for the umpteenth time, he could not refuse to play if he was not asked to do so. He was guilty of refusing to warm up and in breach of contract on that basis.
The Club dropped the allegation of refusal to play well in advance of the Inquiry and no mention is made of it in the findings.

You must be boring yourself by now.

Refusing to participate is plenty enough. However you want to rationalise with yourself.

Hes a laugh a minute that remoh.

Yep; It's easier to laugh than to think for some of us.

-- Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:36 pm --

How could he be guilty of refusing to participate if he was not asked to??

He was found guilty of not participating, He is not accused of refusing as you have claimed here and for the umpteenth time, he could not refuse to play if he was not asked to do so. He was guilty of refusing to warm up and in breach of contract on that basis.
The Club dropped the allegation of refusal to play well in advance of the Inquiry and no mention is made of it in the findings.

The charge was not refusing to play, or refusing to warm up or as Tevez' spin doctor ludicrously claimed: 'refusing to resume warmnig up' (haha, as if such a charge exists!) the charge was misconduct. The misconduct charge was made up of the five points listed, one of which was refusing to participate in a match & he was found guilty.

He has accepted the guilty verdict. City probably think that proving the details of his strop in a court of law would be difficult & possibly costly & counter productive so have not persued it.

Imo, they should have tried to nail the bastard's hat on & should try again now. Even if it takes years. If Tevez gets his transfer, he has won.

I find that totally unacceptable.

Looking more deeply into it,the charge was of not participating in a game when given a legitimate instruction from a qualified person (not verbatim). When a player is told to warm up, it is often tactical. Many players are not brought on after warming up, as Tevez wasn't originally, because the purpose of it is to motivate players who could be taken off. This has been normal practice for many years; nothing new.

Players who warm up are, from a legal point of view, participating in the game, whether the manager decides to play them or not, because of the possible effect on their team-mates and maybe even the tactics of the opposition manager, which explains the Club's legal right to charge him on that particular breach of contract and the others.

Remember that I've never denied Tevez' culpability in this, I have simply reiterated that he did not refuse to play and that Souness based his rant on that mistaken and unproven, belief, which makes him legally vulnerable imo. As you say, and I'm glad to hear you confirm this because it backs my point,the charge is not refusing to play. That is what the whole debate has been about.

Thank you for that, point made. (My point, not yours)<br /><br />-- Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:04 pm --<br /><br />

You must be boring yourself by now.

Refusing to participate is plenty enough. However you want to rationalise with yourself.

Hes a laugh a minute that remoh.

The bloke is becoming an embarrassment to all TRUE City fans.
I`m now of the opinion he`s a RAG wumming !!

I may well have been cheering the lads on from the Kippax when you were still hanging off your mum's nips.
Mind your mouth!