Tevez backs down ?

[blink922]

Cheeky!

PS
Just to cover all the bases (but not to re-start the marathon), He was guilty as charged, but was never charged with refusing to play.

That's right, he was only guilty of refusing to participate in a match when instructed!!!!

Please don't bother trying to explain the difference.

Oooooh, you silly sod!

I'll repeat it one last time. Try to concentrate, please!!!

He refused to warm up. Instead of sending him on anyway, Roberto took the hump. THAT IS WHY HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH REFUSING TO PLAY!!!

This is definitely the last time that I'll explain this to you.

Gordon Taylor on Bluemoon, what an honor.

 

[johnmc]

Why has he city gear on?

 

[warpig]

he's really making this easy for the club, isn't he?

it appears the pressure is definately getting to him.

 

[LoveCity]

Why has he city gear on?

That's an older picture, this is him in Argentina:

 

[waspish]

He'll be back Wednesday! He's a sensible chap our Tevez );-/)

 

[TFC]

lmao, if this latest 'gone back to Argentina' stuff is true, this lad really doesnt have the brains he was born with.

6 months ago I never thought I would write this, but I cant wait til we've fucked him off in January.

 

[Blue Haze]

Man City rebel Tevez back where they love him... but is he allowed to be in Argentina?
By Alex Kay and Ian Ladyman
Last updated at 11:22 PM on 8th November 2011

Carlos Tevez faces a new disciplinary charge from Manchester City after defying Roberto Mancini again and flying home to Argentina without permission.

Tevez has chosen not to dispute his punishment for allegedly refusing to play against Bayern Munich in September, looks set to be fined a further two weeks' wages unless he turns up at training at 10.30 on Wednesday morning.

That looks unlikely, as our pictures show him arriving in Buenos Aires on Tuesday.

Sportsmail can reveal that Tevez's representatives asked City's temporary chief executive John McBeath at the weekend if the 27-year-old could spend a week in Argentina but the request was denied as manager Mancini wanted him to continue working on his fitness.

Tevez then asked Mancini's assistant Fausto Salsano on Monday and was again turned down after the second request had been relayed to the City manager.

However, it appears Tevez ignored these instructions and flew to South America anyway. On arriving at Buenos Aires airport with his daughter Florencia, Tevez said only: 'I am here to get some rest.'

The striker was on a day off on Tuesday anyway so had not breached his contract. But unless the former club captain turns up at Carrington on Wednesday morning he will once again find himself facing a misconduct charge.

In order for him to be back in Manchester today, Tevez will have had only a matter of hours on the ground in South America.

He has been training on his own at Carrington for the last month as City's fitness staff endeavour to get him in shape.

However, it can also be revealed that Tevez has missed at least some of that training in recent weeks with mystery injuries.

On two occasions, he has not trained because of non-football related injuries and as a result Mancini's staff believe he has made relatively poor progress as they try to get him in a condition in which he could theoretically play a competitive game.

A City spokesman said: 'Carlos is part way through a training plan and is due to resume on Wednesday following a rest day.'

If, as expected, Tevez doesn't show up City will treat him as they would any other player who disobeyed direct instructions. He can expect to be fined two weeks' wages, in accordance with PFA guidelines.

His camp have declined to comment.

Oh Christ, just let him stay in Argentina as long as he shuts up. At least he won't be in England stirring up trouble.

 

[remoh]

That's right, he was only guilty of refusing to participate in a match when instructed!!!!

Please don't bother trying to explain the difference.

Oooooh, you silly sod!

I'll repeat it one last time. Try to concentrate, please!!!

He refused to warm up. Instead of sending him on anyway, Roberto took the hump. THAT IS WHY HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH REFUSING TO PLAY!!!

This is definitely the last time that I'll explain this to you.

He has been found guilty of refusing to participate, not just charged: FOUND GUILTY you pompous git. I've spelt this out for you on the other thread.
The five contractual obligations found by the disciplinary panel to have been breached are:

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.

It doesn't say charged with refusing to warm up it says FOUND TO BE IN BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY MATCHES IE: GUILTY NOT 'CHARGED WITH' FOUND FUCKING GUILTY OF.

He has failed to contest this guilty finding & now fucked poff to Argentina without permission. Perhaps he's using you as his advisor ?

The Club found that he was guilty of refusing to participate. He didn't participate because he was not asked to. Clearly, the Club interprets the refusal to warm up as refusing to participate. Legally that must be open to challenge but that is up to Tevez; perhaps he will, perhaps he won't.
My point all along is that he may not have refused to play, and that theory was backed up by the Club dropping that charge. (repeated again now by ESPN, by the way), The findings of the inquiry do not contradict that.

Now get a grip on yourself you prat.

 

[west didsblue]

The Club found that he was guilty of refusing to participate. He didn't participate because he was not asked to. Clearly, the Club interprets the refusal to warm up as refusing to participate. Legally that must be open to challenge but that is up to Tevez; perhaps he will, perhaps he won't.
My point all along is that he may not have refused to play, and that theory was backed up by the Club dropping that charge. (repeated again now by ESPN, by the way), The findings of the inquiry do not contradict that.

Now get a grip on yourself you prat.

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

 

[DTeacher]

Oooooh, you silly sod!

I'll repeat it one last time. Try to concentrate, please!!!

He refused to warm up. Instead of sending him on anyway, Roberto took the hump. THAT IS WHY HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH REFUSING TO PLAY!!!

This is definitely the last time that I'll explain this to you.

He has been found guilty of refusing to participate, not just charged: FOUND GUILTY you pompous git. I've spelt this out for you on the other thread.
The five contractual obligations found by the disciplinary panel to have been breached are:

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.

It doesn't say charged with refusing to warm up it says FOUND TO BE IN BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY MATCHES IE: GUILTY NOT 'CHARGED WITH' FOUND FUCKING GUILTY OF.

He has failed to contest this guilty finding & now fucked poff to Argentina without permission. Perhaps he's using you as his advisor ?

The Club found that he was guilty of refusing to participate. He didn't participate because he was not asked to. Clearly, the Club interprets the refusal to warm up as refusing to participate. Legally that must be open to challenge but that is up to Tevez; perhaps he will, perhaps he won't.
My point all along is that he may not have refused to play, and that theory was backed up by the Club dropping that charge. (repeated again now by ESPN, by the way), The findings of the inquiry do not contradict that.

Now get a grip on yourself you prat.

Remoh:

First line you wrote: ''The Club found that he was guilty of refusing to participate.''

Second line you wrote: ''He didn't participate because he was not asked to.''

BUT if he was found GUILTY, why are you not accepting the Club's decision?


Edit: I see WestDidsblue beat me to it.