Tevez to sue Souness

[west didsblue]

The BBC broadcasts 'shit' by the bucketload, especially when it comes to football. What planet have you been on ?

Are you another one who has somehow conveniently 'forgotten' that this item was all over the media?

What planet were you on at the time?

You are just choosing to disbelieve what does not suit you.

I've seen in the media the exact translation of Tevez admitting to refusing to play. The only other things relating to this that I have seen in the media have been opinion, not fact. Where have you seen a media response accurately detailing the exact charges to which Tevez was found guilty & what was the source ? I would like to read it.

I asked him the same question and he referred me to a speculative BBC report from 4 days before the City statement. He hasn't got anything else other than "it's all over the media" and he says I'm the mug

 

[remoh]

Are you another one who has somehow conveniently 'forgotten' that this item was all over the media?

What planet were you on at the time?

You are just choosing to disbelieve what does not suit you.

I've seen in the media the exact translation of Tevez admitting to refusing to play. The only other things relating to this that I have seen in the media have been opinion, not fact. Where have you seen a media response accurately detailing the exact charges to which Tevez was found guilty & what was the source ? I would like to read it.

I asked him the same question and he referred me to a BBC report from 4 days before the City statement. He hasn't got anything else other than "it's all over the media" and he says I'm the mug

Neville,
Where did I ever say that I had seen details of the charges. My point involves the fact, that was well reported and not denied, that the accusation of refusing to play had been dropped and that is what may make Souness legally vulnerable.

Westdidsblue,
It was all over the media and,as I've said, not denied.
Have you been on the same ignorant planet as Neville?

 

[west didsblue]

I've seen in the media the exact translation of Tevez admitting to refusing to play. The only other things relating to this that I have seen in the media have been opinion, not fact. Where have you seen a media response accurately detailing the exact charges to which Tevez was found guilty & what was the source ? I would like to read it.

I asked him the same question and he referred me to a BBC report from 4 days before the City statement. He hasn't got anything else other than "it's all over the media" and he says I'm the mug

Neville,
Where did I ever say that I had seen details of the charges. My point involves the fact, that was well reported and not denied, that the accusation of refusing to play had been dropped and that is what may make Souness legally vulnerable.

Westdidsblue,
It was all over the media and,as I've said, not denied.
Have you been on the same ignorant planet as Neville?

Remoh, If you haven't seen details of the charges, here they are:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/October/club-statement-Carlos-Tevez-Oct-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... vez-Oct-25</a>

I think I am on the same planet as Neville which is different to the one you're on with Tevez, Kia and Mark Hughes

 

[remoh]

I asked him the same question and he referred me to a BBC report from 4 days before the City statement. He hasn't got anything else other than "it's all over the media" and he says I'm the mug

Neville,
Where did I ever say that I had seen details of the charges. My point involves the fact, that was well reported and not denied, that the accusation of refusing to play had been dropped and that is what may make Souness legally vulnerable.

Westdidsblue,
It was all over the media and,as I've said, not denied.
Have you been on the same ignorant planet as Neville?

Remoh, If you haven't seen details of the charges, here they are:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/October/club-statement-Carlos-Tevez-Oct-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... vez-Oct-25</a>

I think I am on the same planet as Neville which is different to the one you're on with Tevez, Kia and Mark Hughes

Thank you for that and I have seen that before, but of course this is not the Charge List, these are the Findings and nowhere do they say that Tevez refused to play, incidentally, just that he refused instructions. That is not denied; he definitely did that and that is what he has been punished for. I believe that a guilty finding on a charge of refusal to play would have lead to dismissal of the player, which has not happened.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Neville,
Where did I ever say that I had seen details of the charges. My point involves the fact, that was well reported and not denied, that the accusation of refusing to play had been dropped and that is what may make Souness legally vulnerable.

Westdidsblue,
It was all over the media and,as I've said, not denied.
Have you been on the same ignorant planet as Neville?

Remoh, If you haven't seen details of the charges, here they are:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/October/club-statement-Carlos-Tevez-Oct-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... vez-Oct-25</a>

I think I am on the same planet as Neville which is different to the one you're on with Tevez, Kia and Mark Hughes

Thank you for that and I have seen that before, but of course this is not the Charge List, these are the Findings and nowhere do they say that Tevez refused to play, incidentally, just that he refused instructions. That is not denied; he definitely did that and that is what he has been punished for. I believe that a guilty finding on a charge of refusal to play would have lead to dismissal of the player, which has not happened.

Tevez said he refused to play though. So how can he sue Souness for moaning about it, when he admitted it in public on the very night that Souness made those comments ?

 

[oakiecokie]

Neville,
Where did I ever say that I had seen details of the charges. My point involves the fact, that was well reported and not denied, that the accusation of refusing to play had been dropped and that is what may make Souness legally vulnerable.

Westdidsblue,
It was all over the media and,as I've said, not denied.
Have you been on the same ignorant planet as Neville?

Remoh, If you haven't seen details of the charges, here they are:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/October/club-statement-Carlos-Tevez-Oct-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... vez-Oct-25</a>

I think I am on the same planet as Neville which is different to the one you're on with Tevez, Kia and Mark Hughes

Thank you for that and I have seen that before, but of course this is not the Charge List, these are the Findings and nowhere do they say that Tevez refused to play, incidentally, just that he refused instructions. That is not denied; he definitely did that and that is what he has been punished for. I believe that a guilty finding on a charge of refusal to play would have lead to dismissal of the player, which has not happened.

Well thats even more stupid than some of your other comments so far !!

 

[Neville Kneville]

these are the Findings and nowhere do they say that Tevez refused to play, incidentally

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.

Carlos Tevez has the right to appeal this decision to the Board of the Club. Any appeal must be made within 14 days.

How is Tevez' appeal against the charge of refusing to participate in the game going ?

 

[west didsblue]

Neville,
Where did I ever say that I had seen details of the charges. My point involves the fact, that was well reported and not denied, that the accusation of refusing to play had been dropped and that is what may make Souness legally vulnerable.

Westdidsblue,
It was all over the media and,as I've said, not denied.
Have you been on the same ignorant planet as Neville?

Remoh, If you haven't seen details of the charges, here they are:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/October/club-statement-Carlos-Tevez-Oct-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... vez-Oct-25</a>

I think I am on the same planet as Neville which is different to the one you're on with Tevez, Kia and Mark Hughes

Thank you for that and I have seen that before, but of course this is not the Charge List, these are the Findings and nowhere do they say that Tevez refused to play, incidentally, just that he refused instructions. That is not denied; he definitely did that and that is what he has been punished for. I believe that a guilty finding on a charge of refusal to play would have lead to dismissal of the player, which has not happened.

Just read the club statement again. It says the charge is misconduct and the first point is that it says he breached a contractual "obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."
On my planet, that means he refused to play.

 

[remoh]

Remoh, If you haven't seen details of the charges, here they are:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/October/club-statement-Carlos-Tevez-Oct-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... vez-Oct-25</a>

I think I am on the same planet as Neville which is different to the one you're on with Tevez, Kia and Mark Hughes

Thank you for that and I have seen that before, but of course this is not the Charge List, these are the Findings and nowhere do they say that Tevez refused to play, incidentally, just that he refused instructions. That is not denied; he definitely did that and that is what he has been punished for. I believe that a guilty finding on a charge of refusal to play would have lead to dismissal of the player, which has not happened.

Tevez said he refused to play though. So how can he sue Souness for moaning about it, when he admitted it in public on the very night that Souness made those comments ?

If he did say that, and the Club had legally watertight proof, then I'm quite sure that they would have backed Mancini all the way. A manager who has settled in and is now producing excellent results is gold-dust to a club, whereas Tevez, for all his quality on the pitch, is just a player who is obviously not desperately needed by us.
When the Club dropped the accusation of refusing to play, Mancini must have been devastated at what he must have seen as a failure to support him and this would never have been done without good reason.
Maybe City had already heard the views of witnesses and realised that they could not make that charge stick when push came to shove.

 

[oakiecokie]

these are the Findings and nowhere do they say that Tevez refused to play, incidentally

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.

Carlos Tevez has the right to appeal this decision to the Board of the Club. Any appeal must be made within 14 days.

How is Tevez' appeal against the charge of refusing to participate in the game going ?

Not too difficult for some people to understand mate.
He appealed against the fine only,which even the PFA Chairman stated on TV.
No doubt you know who will come back with more shite !! lol