BlueTony
Well-Known Member
remoh said:
But as I said earlier in this thread his reputation is already terminally fucked due to his actions and the actions of his agent so he is claiming for damages to what?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tevez to sue Souness
- Thread starter LoveCity
- Start date
But as I said earlier in this thread his reputation is already terminally fucked due to his actions and the actions of his agent so he is claiming for damages to what?
remoh said:No, it's not the same thing, because he was prepared to go on the pitch and play. He has claimed that he was and no-one can prove that he wasn't.
As regards his supposed statement the next day; had that been provable, then surely the Club would have had grounds to charge him with refusing to play but, as we know, they didn't do that. I'm quite sure that if they could have, they would have.
If 1000 footballers refuse the managers instruction to warm up, how many of them will end up playing? It is exactly the same thing.
As regards his supposed statement, I'm sure you can still get the interview on youtube. To date the only person that has questioned the legitimacy of what he said is Kia Joorabchian.
It may well be that it's in the clubs interest to find him guilty of a breach, but not gross misconduct. Either way, what the club has or hasn't used in an investigation has no bearing on any lawsuit against Graeme Souness.
BlueTony said:remoh said:moomba said:As far as I'm concerned refusing to warm up is the same as refusing to play. But in case the court is any doubt they could easily cause a witness C.Tevez who admitted that he wasn't in the right frame of mind to play.
Perhaps he could sue himself?
No, it's not the same thing, because he was prepared to go on the pitch and play. He has claimed that he was and no-one can prove that he wasn't.
As regards his supposed statement the next day; had that been provable, then surely the Club would have had grounds to charge him with refusing to play but, as we know, they didn't do that. I'm quite sure that if they could have, they would have.
But as I said earlier in this thread his reputation is already terminally fucked due to his actions and the actions of his agent so he is claiming for damages to what?
Well, up until the Munich fiasco, all he had been guilty of was a repeated desire to quit England and be able to live with his family and requesting a transfer to allow that. As a fan, he has annoyed the hell out of me, but to make claims on TV that he is 'selfish', a 'bad apple', a possible saboteur, etc is legally dodgy. Souness just lost his head imo.<br /><br />-- Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:35 pm --<br /><br />
moomba said:remoh said:No, it's not the same thing, because he was prepared to go on the pitch and play. He has claimed that he was and no-one can prove that he wasn't.
As regards his supposed statement the next day; had that been provable, then surely the Club would have had grounds to charge him with refusing to play but, as we know, they didn't do that. I'm quite sure that if they could have, they would have.
If 1000 footballers refuse the managers instruction to warm up, how many of them will end up playing? It is exactly the same thing.As regards his supposed statement, I'm sure you can still get the interview on youtube. To date the only person that has questioned the legitimacy of what he said is Kia Joorabchian.
It may well be that it's in the clubs interest to find him guilty of a breach, but not gross misconduct. Either way, what the club has or hasn't used in an investigation has no bearing on any lawsuit against Graeme Souness.
No it isn't. You're talking about a manager's choice, whether to play a man who has refused to warm up or not. Roberto could have accepted Tevez' position and played hm, had he wished.
Had the interview been conclusive proof, then refusal to play would have been included in the list. Not doing so puts our Club and manager at risk and I repeat, no-one on the bench heard Tevez refuse to play.
We may yet see that the Club's enquiry evidence has a good deal of bearing on Tevez' claim, if he chooses to make one.
Manchester_City_Blue
Well-Known Member
Just get the little tosser out. In a way i'm glad Tevez pulled that stunt in Munich because we are such a better team without him, no chance we'd have beaten them lot 6-1 with last years formation. I'll always be grateful for the goals he scored but i'll never support or like him again.
kippaxwarrior
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 22,534
- Location
- Jupiter Mining Corporation Red Dwarf
- Team supported
- City of course!!
Manchester_City_Blue said:Just get the little tosser out. In a way i'm glad Tevez pulled that stunt in Munich because we are such a better team without him, no chance we'd have beaten them lot 6-1 with last years formation. I'll always be grateful for the goals he scored but i'll never support or like him again.
^^^^^^^^^
THIS
Tevez City
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 May 2010
- Messages
- 13,782
remoh said:BlueTony said:remoh said:No, it's not the same thing, because he was prepared to go on the pitch and play. He has claimed that he was and no-one can prove that he wasn't.
As regards his supposed statement the next day; had that been provable, then surely the Club would have had grounds to charge him with refusing to play but, as we know, they didn't do that. I'm quite sure that if they could have, they would have.
But as I said earlier in this thread his reputation is already terminally fucked due to his actions and the actions of his agent so he is claiming for damages to what?
Well, up until the Munich fiasco, all he had been guilty of was a repeated desire to quit England and be able to live with his family and requesting a transfer to allow that. As a fan, he has annoyed the hell out of me, but to make claims on TV that he is 'selfish', a 'bad apple', a possible saboteur, etc is legally dodgy. Souness just lost his head imo.
-- Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:35 pm --
moomba said:remoh said:No, it's not the same thing, because he was prepared to go on the pitch and play. He has claimed that he was and no-one can prove that he wasn't.
As regards his supposed statement the next day; had that been provable, then surely the Club would have had grounds to charge him with refusing to play but, as we know, they didn't do that. I'm quite sure that if they could have, they would have.
If 1000 footballers refuse the managers instruction to warm up, how many of them will end up playing? It is exactly the same thing.As regards his supposed statement, I'm sure you can still get the interview on youtube. To date the only person that has questioned the legitimacy of what he said is Kia Joorabchian.
It may well be that it's in the clubs interest to find him guilty of a breach, but not gross misconduct. Either way, what the club has or hasn't used in an investigation has no bearing on any lawsuit against Graeme Souness.
No it isn't. You're talking about a manager's choice, whether to play a man who has refused to warm up or not. Roberto could have accepted Tevez' position and played hm, had he wished.
Had the interview been conclusive proof, then refusal to play would have been included in the list. Not doing so puts our Club and manager at risk and I repeat, no-one on the bench heard Tevez refuse to play.
We may yet see that the Club's enquiry evidence has a good deal of bearing on Tevez' claim, if he chooses to make one.
Well said.
shawgorbie
Well-Known Member
thought souness was absolutely spot on.The only one on the panel with any guts.Dont give a fuck about this did he or didnt he refuse to go on the pitch,in my eyes the little shit refused.He slagged manchester off,the place where i come from,put in a transfer request when we'd gone top of the league and bleats about his family when he was shagging behind his misses back.Anybody who sticks up for him probalbly has the same selfish attitude that little cretin has
remoh said:No it isn't. You're talking about a manager's choice, whether to play a man who has refused to warm up or not. Roberto could have accepted Tevez' position and played hm, had he wished.
If Tevez wasnt warmed up properly we could not play him as it would endanger his health. That would leave us open to a lawsuit.
Had the interview been conclusive proof, then refusal to play would have been included in the list. Not doing so puts our Club and manager at risk and I repeat, no-one on the bench heard Tevez refuse to play.
We may yet see that the Club's enquiry evidence has a good deal of bearing on Tevez' claim, if he chooses to make one.
It may not have been in the clubs interest to find him guilty of the more serious offence. It may not have been worth the effort of proving the case, when we already had him on the lesser charge.
You don't know that no-one on the bench heard Tevez refuse to play, thats speculation by two journo's who were likely fed information from Joorabchian.
moomba said:remoh said:No it isn't. You're talking about a manager's choice, whether to play a man who has refused to warm up or not. Roberto could have accepted Tevez' position and played hm, had he wished.
If Tevez wasnt warmed up properly we could not play him as it would endanger his health. That would leave us open to a lawsuit.Since tevez was claiming to have warmed up already it would have been impossible for him to make any charge of that kind.
Had the interview been conclusive proof, then refusal to play would have been included in the list. Not doing so puts our Club and manager at risk and I repeat, no-one on the bench heard Tevez refuse to play.
We may yet see that the Club's enquiry evidence has a good deal of bearing on Tevez' claim, if he chooses to make one.
It may not have been in the clubs interest to find him guilty of the more serious offence. It may not have been worth the effort of proving the case, when we already had him on the lesser charge.
Of course it would have been in the Club's interest to have backed the word of the Manager against a disgruntled player had they been able to do that. All stops would have been pulled out.
You don't know that no-one on the bench heard Tevez refuse to play, thats speculation by two journo's who were likely fed information from Joorabchian.
Had Mancini been backed up by even one player, that would have been classed as proof enough, surely, unless he were overridden by other witnesses.
Either way, the charge could not be made to stick.
The action that City have taken is of no relevance to this. When did Souness make the comments? Was it after Mancini's interview where mancini said that he wouldn't come on? If so, Tevez has no case. Souness was only reacting & commenting on a statement that a City official had made. Other than Hughes, everybody else said & thought the same thing.