Tevez to sue Souness

[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.

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

Thank you. And your reasons, please?

 

[oakiecokie]

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 !!

Thank you. And your reasons, please?

Heard of the FFPR have we ??

 

[Neville Kneville]

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.

Let's try again:

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.

You do understand what that means ?

 

[oakiecokie]

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.

Let's try again:

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.

You do understand what that means ?

Print it in braille,he may understand it then !!

 

[remoh]

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 ?

Neville:
1. He was not directed to play; he was directed to warm up. When he refused, he was not asked again. There is a difference. In refusing to warm up he left himself open to these charges.

2. I don't think an appeal would stand much chance, but this whole post is a red herring when the debate only concerns the original claim of refusing to play.

I'm trying to be patient with all of you but there is a definite unwillingness to understand going on here! Many of the points that I am having to make I have already made earlier in the thread. Do me the favour of checking back before posting again.

-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:20 am --

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.

Let's try again:

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.

You do understand what that means ?

Print it in braille,he may understand it then !!

See above
-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:23 am --

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

Thank you. And your reasons, please?

Heard of the FFPR have we ??

Yes, I have and in this case we have a financial double-edged sword. Transfer fee v wages. Backing the manager would have over-ridden that anyway imo.

 

[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 ?

Neville:
1. He was not directed to play; he was directed to warm up. When he refused, he was not asked again. There is a difference. In refusing to warm up he left himself open to these charges.

2. I don't think an appeal would stand much chance, but this whole post is a red herring when the debate only concerns the original claim of refusing to play.

I'm trying to be patient with all of you but there is a definite unwillingness to understand going on here! Many of the points that I am having to make I have already made earlier in the thread. Do me the favour of checking back before posting again.

-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:20 am --

Let's try again:

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.

You do understand what that means ?

Print it in braille,he may understand it then !!

See below

Well I`m still waiting for a discussion ref your thoughts on sacking Tevez and the implications it could have on our Balance Sheet at the end of the year,with the FFPR !!

 

[remoh]

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 ?

Neville:
1. He was not directed to play; he was directed to warm up. When he refused, he was not asked again. There is a difference. In refusing to warm up he left himself open to these charges.

2. I don't think an appeal would stand much chance, but this whole post is a red herring when the debate only concerns the original claim of refusing to play.

I'm trying to be patient with all of you but there is a definite unwillingness to understand going on here! Many of the points that I am having to make I have already made earlier in the thread. Do me the favour of checking back before posting again.

-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:20 am --

Print it in braille,he may understand it then !!

See below

Well I`m still waiting for a discussion ref your thoughts on sacking Tevez and the implications it could have on our Balance Sheet at the end of the year,with the FFPR !!

Balance that against humiliating our Manager.

 

[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 ?

Neville:
1. He was not directed to play; he was directed to warm up. When he refused, he was not asked again. There is a difference. In refusing to warm up he left himself open to these charges.

2. I don't think an appeal would stand much chance, but this whole post is a red herring when the debate only concerns the original claim of refusing to play.

I'm trying to be patient with all of you but there is a definite unwillingness to understand going on here! Many of the points that I am having to make I have already made earlier in the thread. Do me the favour of checking back before posting again.

-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:20 am --

Let's try again:

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.

You do understand what that means ?

Print it in braille,he may understand it then !!

See above
-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:23 am --

Thank you. And your reasons, please?

Heard of the FFPR have we ??

Yes, I have and in this case we have a financial double-edged sword. Transfer fee v wages. Backing the manager would have over-ridden that anyway imo.

But the Club HAVE backed the Manager !! Havn`t they ??

 

[remoh]

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 ?

Neville:
1. He was not directed to play; he was directed to warm up. When he refused, he was not asked again. There is a difference. In refusing to warm up he left himself open to these charges.

2. I don't think an appeal would stand much chance, but this whole post is a red herring when the debate only concerns the original claim of refusing to play.

I'm trying to be patient with all of you but there is a definite unwillingness to understand going on here! Many of the points that I am having to make I have already made earlier in the thread. Do me the favour of checking back before posting again.

-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:20 am --

Print it in braille,he may understand it then !!

See above
-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:23 am --

Heard of the FFPR have we ??

Yes, I have and in this case we have a financial double-edged sword. Transfer fee v wages. Backing the manager would have over-ridden that anyway imo.

But the Club HAVE backed the Manager !! Havn`t they ??

No: They dropped the allegation of refusal to play which contradicted his public statement. That is not backing the Manager.<br /><br />-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:30 am --<br /><br />Night night. See you tomorrow.

 

[oakiecokie]

Neville:
1. He was not directed to play; he was directed to warm up. When he refused, he was not asked again. There is a difference. In refusing to warm up he left himself open to these charges.

2. I don't think an appeal would stand much chance, but this whole post is a red herring when the debate only concerns the original claim of refusing to play.

I'm trying to be patient with all of you but there is a definite unwillingness to understand going on here! Many of the points that I am having to make I have already made earlier in the thread. Do me the favour of checking back before posting again.

-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:20 am --



See above
-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:23 am --



Yes, I have and in this case we have a financial double-edged sword. Transfer fee v wages. Backing the manager would have over-ridden that anyway imo.

But the Club HAVE backed the Manager !! Havn`t they ??

No: They dropped the allegation of refusal to play which contradicted his public statement. That is not backing the Manager.

-- Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:30 am --

Night night. See you tomorrow.[/quote

So back to square one !!!
Where does it say that ??