Nobody in South America can afford him, Corinthians are doing some refinancing with the plan to bid £40m or so again but actually have the money ready. Someone else commented elsewhere that if he had come on it would render him cup tied in CL? If that is the case this action would not leave him in a position to be of interest to the big european teams.bluesimon said:This is all part of an ongoing plan by Tevez and Kia. After just 18 months, Tevez wanted out. Since then, he has given different reasons every time and his statement after the game on Tuesday night and then his complete contradictory statement in the morning are yet more examples of this.
All he wants is to go back to South America, whether it be to Brazil or Argentina. No one in Europe will have him now - having shown total disrespect for the manager, his team mates, club, fans as well as every other professional football player. City will not want a long drawn out legal battle, but I reckon if Corinthians come up with £25m, City will let him go and move on.
All that Tevez is doing is forcing the situation to a head. He desperately hoped for one of the European clubs would come in for him, but none of them would ever contemplate meeting him anywhere near his financial demands. Tevez is the one reason any club would proabably go over the new UEFA Financial thresholds. By behaving like this, it might cost him a bit to move on (less wages, signing on fees etc) but remember, he is banking approx £220,000 each and every week - AFTER TAX plus endorsements etc and he must be sitting on at least £25m - which in South America is worth x 50++.
HE DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT. He wants out and I would place my house on the fact that he will end up somewhere in South America by the next transfer window.
Remember, he is also out of favour with his country team because of his 'bigger than god' attitude. This is a player who is probably the 4th or 5th highest paid player on the planet, but in all reality, is probably just sratching the top 20 strikers of you compare all of their virtues. But because he is banking more money than God, he is almost pathological and most certainly mentally deluded in his understanding of the world around him.
So, as long as City can get some kind of 'commercial' compensation and FIFA or who ever would oversee any situation like this and get him banned from playing for any European Club for at least 6/12 months, then he should just get on the next boat down to the Amazon!
nedums noodles said:fuck him off back where he come from,the scruffy little rodent.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9oQeAoWUAk[/youtube]
Jumanji said:Yes, FIFA maybe ban himBlue Haze said:pride in battle said:FIFA want Tevez banned so he cannot play for another club, it's on sky online now.
What? Source plz!
FIFA Vice President said this on Sky Sports:
FIFA said:"If Manchester City Football Club prove it, write to Fifa and state the exact circumstances that happened last night then I believe Fifa should have the power, as they do for drugs-related cases and other cases, to ban the player from taking an active part in football.
"I would have no problem with that whatsoever. It hasn't occurred before but I think what happened last night was despicable."
"I would have no problems if some sanctions were imposed by Fifa in that respect. People within the clubs and within the top level of Fifa need to discuss this aspect of the game.
"If Carlos Tevez does it, who's to say someone else doing it the next week or the week after? It could become a massive problem."
corky1970 said:Section 12 paragraph 14 sub heading
Employment law in sporting contracts
Where a individual who under contract with a governing sporting body recognised under National law ( section 2319 government law and sport 1999) has refused to reasonably justify self exclusion from said contract then the contract holders may take the following action
Suspend the thick argie **** ( suspension of dozy **** act 1987) for a time deemed reasonable by contract holders
Removal of spaz downy fuckwit from all sporting and related contract affiliation ( window lick act 1936 ammended under rooney act 2011)
And / or a public kicking and " kick a spaz" event , superceded by hanging ( giggs act 2011 )
Mmmmm interesting
Wobble your fucking head fella.Bigga said:Being forced away from all staff and being made to train 'on his own' would be folly. It would effectively treated as 'slavery', so we couldn't be as extreme as that.
Mr Tévez could not refuse to train with the kids as he would still be involved and anything else will breach his contract further.
I still think City will sue the man after sacking him with the backing of FIFA, who will be frantically re-writing the rules or adding new stipulations in order to strengthen their association.
I "get your drift" but the board believe they can receive more through the courts than on the transfer market and will go for it if they can argue they have a case.vonksbignose said:I've heard some right old shit on this thread tonight about us having Tevez by the balls.
Much as I'd love that to be the case, the likelihood is that its more the other way round, especially considering Mancini's unfortunate declaration that Carlos's days at the club are over. In light of this, if we stick him in the stiffs, I'd be surprised if he couldn't have us for constructive dismissal.
Therefore, the only option we seem to have is to get rid as soon as possible, although that avenue is seriously undermined too by Mancini having declared that we no longer want him. Any fee that we are now able to bring in will be hugely reduced as a result of other clubs knowing that we want rid!
I'm disappointed that someone within the higher echelons of the club (maybe a press officer, or club lawyer), wasn't on hand last night prior to Mancini going out to face the press. If there was someone with a legal mind watching the managers back, I'm convinced they would have told him to say nothing, for fear of prejudicing our future chances of a positive outcome for the club. Once again, the club appear to have dropped the ball!
With all of this in mind, the only way I can see us getting our 2 aims of a) getting rid of him & b) getting our money back, would seem to be through any insurance policies we have taken out on the transfer fees we paid for him. I would imagine that we are covered in the event of him becoming incapacitated & being unable to fulfil his duties, so in my view, this should be the way the club looks to recover any losses.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that being an ugly little **** qualifies as a disability great enough to prevent him playing football, & I'm quite certain that the "mental & physical state" that prevented him from warming up & playing last night will have miraculously cleared up now that he feels he's got what he wants.
This leaves us hoping that he picks up a career ending injury & he's far more likely to do that if he's made to train rather than banned from the training ground (if you get my drift)!