• Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here

Manchester United Thread

Nani just said that he is desperate to join us and emulate his friend Ronaldo.This is what I'm talking about...the romance is back.Sir Alex is reportedly has already begun negotiations with Sammy Etoo thru Rio Ferdinand's agent,Pini Zahavi.Its all about Speed next season,trust me.

Well, over here theres the buzz going round that Real Massamá, Nani's club before Sporting, is very alert to the possibility of a transfer to ManU, because they get the right to part of the transfer fee. So things might be happening.
 
Nani just said that he is desperate to join us and emulate his friend Ronaldo.This is what I'm talking about...the romance is back.Sir Alex is reportedly has already begun negotiations with Sammy Etoo thru Rio Ferdinand's agent,Pini Zahavi.Its all about Speed next season,trust me.

Dont play around with me now. You're getting me over excited like we always do that times like this.
 
Well, over here theres the buzz going round that Real Massamá, Nani's club before Sporting, is very alert to the possibility of a transfer to ManU, because they get the right to part of the transfer fee. So things might be happening.

Real Massama is Great - I prefer it much better to fake Massama. But then again if you haven't got enough money - then the fake Massana could be a worthy substitute - but I suggest to save up for the proper stuff.
 
Real Massama is Great - I prefer it much better to fake Massama. But then again if you haven't got enough money - then the fake Massana could be a worthy substitute - but I suggest to save up for the proper stuff.

That was almost funny... :);)

Anyway, Real in Portuguese as in Spanish means Royal. And Nani should go, he won't play against my team anymore. :D
 
He can bring Moutinho with him if he likes.

We're being linked with Owen too. Hope we don't get that little shit. He's injured more than Saha and isn't as fast anymore. He should just sign for England as that's the only teams he's interested in.
 
Last edited:
Absoloutely Superb Article.

Hopefully not the beginning of the end. And dont rant on about Man Utd bias, read the bloody arguement and see it from an overall point of view and what it could mean for the game as a whole.


Rules? Next they’ll be getting away with murder
Martin Samuel

Columbo Hey, I’m sorry, I’m making a pest of myself.

Ken Naw!

Columbo Yes, yes I am. I know, it’s because I keep asking these questions, but I’ll tell ya, I can’t help myself. It’s a habit. (Murder by the Book, series one, episode one.)

Typical. You wait all season for an FA Premier League whitewash and then two come along at once. And what a cracker, that second one. Alastair Campbell would be proud.

On Sunday morning, it was revealed that the League was investigating Everton and Manchester United over the transfer of Tim Howard and his subsequent failure to appear in a match between the clubs on April 28; and then on Sunday afternoon it announced the matter considered and closed. Wow. You can’t get service like that anywhere on a Bank Holiday weekend usually. I once queried a parking ticket with Islington council and it dragged on for three months.

No disrespect, but under normal circumstances the Premier League’s approach to time-keeping is bordering on Caribbean. For instance, Carlos Tévez and Javier Mascherano signed for West Ham United on August 31, 2006, and the new owners disclosed the third-party arrangements governing the deal on January 24, 2007. It took until March 2 for the club to be charged and April 27 for an independent commission to hear fully the evidence and punish.

Yet at approximately 5pm on Friday, May 4, a Premier League spokesman confirmed to me that there would be an investigation into the Howard transfer, and at half-time in the match between Arsenal and Chelsea on Sunday, May 6, the same gentleman called to announce the deal had received the green light.

Columbo You know how a person always does something one way and then he suddenly does something another way? I immediately think . . . (taps head). (Playback, series four, episode five.)

And no doubt it was circumstantial that within an hour, Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, was due to be in front of the cameras, the Premiership title secure, glass of celebratory champagne in one hand, sponsors name plastered over the backdrop, but there does seem a degree of expediency about this conclusion. Not to mention a dash of the crass, the craven and the reckless in a decision that paves the way for football to become a veritable Dodge City of side deals, quid pro quos and clandestine alliances.

To recap, last week, in this column, I raised the issue of Howard’s withdrawal from the match between Everton and Manchester United at Goodison Park. As Howard had become a permanent signing for Everton on February 14, 2007 (loan deals are not subject to the constraints of the transfer window and can be completed at any time, with no further performance restrictions), there was no reason why he should not have played.

Instead, Everton fielded an understudy, Iain Turner, who was directly responsible for United’s first goal and partly at fault for the second. Everton said that as a condition of making the deal permanent. there had been an agreement that Howard would not play against United if the title race was still live. This would be a clear case of third-party interference and demonstrated inconsistency on the part of the Premier League.

The following day I was contacted by Dan Johnson, of the Premier League, to take issue, saying that Howard had no such clause in his contract and the League would not have allowed it because it would be a breach of third-party rules. I told him the information had come directly from Everton, on the record and without persuasion. It had been stated as a matter of fact, in response to a straight question about Howard’s absence. David Moyes, the Everton manager, had also made no secret of it in his press briefings before the game. There was a short silence, which I broke by asking if the Premier League would now investigate, as there appeared to be a serious discrepancy. Johnson said he would get back to me.

After no word and several telephone calls, late on Friday afternoon, Johnson did confirm that there would be an investigation as there was no paperwork to suggest Howard should not have played. And on Sunday, with United’s ninth Premiership title less than an hour away, Johnson confirmed that the matter had been swiftly resolved. Having spoken to both clubs, he could verify there was no written agreement that Howard could not play. But, of course, we knew that.

“So, if Howard could have played, why didn’t he?” I asked. “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Everton,” Johnson said. But I had asked Everton, the previous week. Everton said Howard did not play because of an arrangement with Manchester United; and its existence in writing was no longer the issue.

Columbo I was just wondering because your beach house and his beach house, they’re fairly close, aren’t they?

Brimmer No. It’s a couple of miles.

Columbo That close! Isn’t that a coincidence? I’ll tell ya, this case is just full of ’em. (Death Lends A Hand, series one, episode two.)

For the record, these are the other Everton matches in which Moyes chose not to play Howard this season: Peterborough United (away), League Cup, September 19, 2006; Luton Town (home), League Cup, October 24, 2006. And then United at home at a time when Everton were fighting tooth and nail for a Uefa Cup place. Draw your own conclusions.

Columbo You turned the radio down but not quite off when I told you Eric Wagner was dead. It’s all right. I do the same thing. You know, when I’m listening to the game and my wife interrupts. I can’t help myself. I want to hear that game and I don’t care how important the interruption. (The Most Crucial Game, series two, episode three.)

And we’re not that different to the lieutenant. I think United are the best team in the country and perhaps the most exciting in Europe. Like a great many people, I hoped that commitment to the beautiful game would be rewarded with the league title. Yet the next day there were forests dedicated to the glory of their title win and no mention of the inconvenient little scandal that the Premier League had brushed under the carpet to wave it through untroubled. And the fact that, again, the happy ending was placed before sporting good is alarming.

Yes, technically, third-party interference does carry the threat of a points deduction, but considering the precedent set over the transfers of Tévez and Mascherano, nothing could really have spoilt Ferguson’s champagne moment. There would have been no deduction of points even if the Premier League had investigated fully, rather than taking a coward’s way out. And that was its duty. Vital issues were at stake; and still are.

Columbo Well, what do you know, here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn’t even notice. (The Bye-Bye Sky High I.Q. Murder Case, series six, episode three.)

The Premier League argues that, with nothing in writing, the most Everton could have been charged with is not fielding their best team, and the horse bolted from that stable long ago. Yet the Howard case does not equate to, for instance, the shadow Liverpool XI that lost to Fulham last week. That Liverpool team, full strength or not, was selected by Rafael BenÍtez, the Liverpool manager. The Howard selection was, by Everton’s initial admission, subject to the wishes of Manchester United.

So what is there to stop a similar raft of convenient understandings taking place this weekend, with relegation at stake? Could close friends Paul Jewell, of Wigan Athletic, and Neil Warnock, of Sheffield United, come to an agreement? What about the equally convivial Ferguson and Alan Curbishley, the West Ham manager? “Maybe next season I will need to call some of my friends,” José Mourinho, the Chelsea manager, deadpanned on hearing of the Premier League decision. And, while that may not form an exhaustive list, kinship is not required to make a deal work; just mutual interest.

Indeed, as long as nobody puts it in writing, what is there to stop the Premier League becoming a powder-keg of alliances, given that the governing body displays no desire to operate as anything more than a glorified fixtures secretary? Gentlemen’s agreements are notoriously hard to prove; but the one around Howard was not. Many statements were matters of record or had third-party corroboration. At the very least, there was enough information to issue a warning; or show the Premier League cared.

Columbo See, now there you go. You’re looking at your watch again.

Roger Stanford Will you do me a favour? Will you please keep quiet?

Columbo Why? It’s only a dumb theory of mine. (Short Fuse, series one, episode six.)

OK, I’ll be brief. The point is that the moment the Premier League loses the motivation to govern or accepts that certain aspects of the business of football can no longer be governed, the game takes a sinister turn. The cosy arrangement that took Howard out of a critical match this season could one day be replaced by something considerably more cynical, by two unscrupulous owners or managers, for money. And nothing will be in writing then, either.

Managers are already talking quite openly about the need for certain clubs to play fair and field the strongest teams on the final day of the season. This is how it began in Italy. And we know where it ended.
 
this guy doesnt get it, IT IS ABOUT MONEY. And Im sorry but if your telling me moyes wanted to lose, that is just stupid. UEFA CUP SPOT =MONEY. THIS IS ABOUT MONEY. Antred why did UEFA bend over backwards to allow liverpool in the champions league when they didnt qualify/earn it? Is that sinister as well?
 
I cant read that much in one go without pictures to break it all up. Can someone summarise?

airjoca - thank you for the lesson - I didn't know that. (I'm not being sarcastic) why didn't anybody tell me this befoe or mention it? quite alot of teams have Real at the beginning.
 
Is Howard that good? :lol: ....that og killed any chance and Eagle`s shot was of a top level which was outrageous. What are we talking about here. Barton should be in jail and why r ManCity producing thugs. Your very own attacks :( ...sorry 4 the ranting
 
You're clutching at straws you bitter mickey.The clubs had agreed verbally that if the transfer was to take place mid season that Howard would not be able to play against his old team, if Everton had wanted to play Howard they could have, Utd would'nt have been able to do a thing about it. It was an incentive to Everton to get the deal tied up before the end of the season and secure the signing of the player. I tell you what why not bring a new ruling in where Liverpool can play an extra 20 matches and if by some miracle that you manage to win half of those you may overtake our points total. You bitter jealous mickey.
 
Last edited:
Do you guys get it? Obviously not as youre on your bitter scouser horse. It doesnt really matter whether its manu or everton, its the fact that an important player cant play in an important match because of a verbal deal. A deal that by the premier leagues guidelines isnt allowed. Honestly you wonder whether anyone actualyl understands what they are reading at times, atleast bbbybx admitted to not being able to read something that long.

Look at it from another perspective, in the summer manu sign eto and end up playing barca in a europe, maybe even the CL final. Now because of a verbal agreement he's not allowed to play in the final, he's your top scorer and barcelona are illegaly taking advantage of manu's determination to sign eto during the summer. Now what would your response be?!

There's a reason why this kind of agreement isnt allowed, and its fairly obvious why with my example. Its also not the point whether manu would have won or not against everton, nor is it only manu's responsibility. Its everton's aswell, because as there is no written agreement they could have gotton away with it. But then they would have damaged the profesional relationship with manu and possibly hampered future deals/signings. Which in turn is against fairplay / transparancy. The premierleagues lack of bollocks means they have given the go ahead for such deals to become common place, and with the eto example could lead to a very dangerous path.

this guy doesnt get it, IT IS ABOUT MONEY. And Im sorry but if your telling me moyes wanted to lose, that is just stupid. UEFA CUP SPOT =MONEY. THIS IS ABOUT MONEY. Antred why did UEFA bend over backwards to allow liverpool in the champions league when they didnt qualify/earn it? Is that sinister as well?

Actually you dont, nobody is saying moyes wanted to lose, where does it state that? It infact asks the opposite, why would moyes rest his top goalie for an important match?! As for the liverpool issue, do you even know what went on? The previous season (04) the fa stated on their website that if arsenal/chelsea won the CL and finished 5th they would automatically take the 4th spot qualification. That never materialised, however the next season it did, but then with liverpool and everton finishing 4th. Instead of following their earlier guidelines they didnt do anything and left it to UEFA to come up with a solution, which was to let liverpool in, as winners of their competition it would have been odd not to have them in?! Thats how that played out, and it was as much to do with the fa not taking a decision as with UEFA having to have their comp winners in the next season. After that they readressed the rules to automatically have the winners in, whatever position they finish in their league, whilst then taking away a qualification berth.

It was an incentive to Everton to get the deal tied up before the end of the season and secure the signing of the player.

Wow, what a logic, do you know the meaning of an incentive?! Everton: "Yes we want to sign your player, but only if we are not allowed to play him against you" That would make it an incentive, but thats just ridiculous. It was a incentive for manu to let him go earlier / punishment for everton wanting to sign him earlier.

Honestly, how thick are you guys?!
 
Look at it from another perspective, in the summer manu sign eto and end up playing barca in a europe, maybe even the CL final. Now because of a verbal agreement he's not allowed to play in the final, he's your top scorer and barcelona are illegaly taking advantage of manu's determination to sign eto during the summer. Now what would your response be?!
I'd blame the idiot who agreed to the deal, not tell the FA or UEFA about it. Thats like agreeing to buy something off someone for a lot more than RRP and then moaning about it to your bank manager after realising how stupid that was.
 
Do you guys get it? Obviously not as youre on your bitter scouser horse. It doesnt really matter whether its manu or everton, its the fact that an important player cant play in an important match because of a verbal deal. A deal that by the premier leagues guidelines isnt allowed. Honestly you wonder whether anyone actualyl understands what they are reading at times, atleast bbbybx admitted to not being able to read something that long.

Look at it from another perspective, in the summer manu sign eto and end up playing barca in a europe, maybe even the CL final. Now because of a verbal agreement he's not allowed to play in the final, he's your top scorer and barcelona are illegaly taking advantage of manu's determination to sign eto during the summer. Now what would your response be?!

There's a reason why this kind of agreement isnt allowed, and its fairly obvious why with my example. Its also not the point whether manu would have won or not against everton, nor is it only manu's responsibility. Its everton's aswell, because as there is no written agreement they could have gotton away with it. But then they would have damaged the profesional relationship with manu and possibly hampered future deals/signings. Which in turn is against fairplay / transparancy. The premierleagues lack of bollocks means they have given the go ahead for such deals to become common place, and with the eto example could lead to a very dangerous path.



Actually you dont, nobody is saying moyes wanted to lose, where does it state that? It infact asks the opposite, why would moyes rest his top goalie for an important match?! As for the liverpool issue, do you even know what went on? The previous season (04) the fa stated on their website that if arsenal/chelsea won the CL and finished 5th they would automatically take the 4th spot qualification. That never materialised, however the next season it did, but then with liverpool and everton finishing 4th. Instead of following their earlier guidelines they didnt do anything and left it to UEFA to come up with a solution, which was to let liverpool in, as winners of their competition it would have been odd not to have them in?! Thats how that played out, and it was as much to do with the fa not taking a decision as with UEFA having to have their comp winners in the next season. After that they readressed the rules to automatically have the winners in, whatever position they finish in their league, whilst then taking away a qualification berth.



Wow, what a logic, do you know the meaning of an incentive?! Everton: "Yes we want to sign your player, but only if we are not allowed to play him against you" That would make it an incentive, but thats just ridiculous. It was a incentive for manu to let him go earlier / punishment for everton wanting to sign him earlier.

Honestly, how thick are you guys?!

Thank you - the voice of reason.

It isnt about Manchester United it just so happens that they are involved in this instance, and i posted it in here as it was the most lively thread at the moment.

Some of you really need to read what i put in the messages at the beginning, im not bitter at all, i think its a concern for all teams.
 
I'd blame the idiot who agreed to the deal, not tell the FA or UEFA about it. Thats like agreeing to buy something off someone for a lot more than RRP and then moaning about it to your bank manager after realising how stupid that was.

Theres another good article by this guy in the telegraph about Loan deals and how they are dodgy. For example United loaning out two keepers that are first team regulars for their perspective clubs in the same competing division, that means that in four matches out of 38 in the league United will play opposition with weak goalkeepers, but the other title challengers wont.

Its taking advantage of the rules somewhat, and should be stopped. And of course the same could be said for any top club loaning out players in the same division with the exception being that a keeping position is an important facet of any team in the top flight.
 
Theres another good article by this guy in the telegraph about Loan deals and how they are dodgy. For example United loaning out two keepers that are first team regulars for their perspective clubs in the same competing division, that means that in four matches out of 38 in the league United will play opposition with weak goalkeepers, but the other title challengers wont.
Chelsea did that last season and the season before. And loaned out a lot more and better players but no one mentioned this then. :roll:
 
Theres another good article by this guy in the telegraph about Loan deals and how they are dodgy. For example United loaning out two keepers that are first team regulars for their perspective clubs in the same competing division, that means that in four matches out of 38 in the league United will play opposition with weak goalkeepers, but the other title challengers wont.

Man Utd aren't forcing Watford or Everton to loan the keepers are they?
 
Nani just said that he is desperate to join us and emulate his friend Ronaldo.This is what I'm talking about...the romance is back.Sir Alex is reportedly has already begun negotiations with Sammy Etoo thru Rio Ferdinand's agent,Pini Zahavi.Its all about Speed next season,trust me.

they'll both get pinched by Chelsea and you know it ;)
 
For example United loaning out two keepers that are first team regulars for their perspective clubs in the same competing division, that means that in four matches out of 38 in the league United will play opposition with weak goalkeepers, but the other title challengers wont.

That's rubbish though really. These keepers we loaned are not premiership keepers. they are our 3rd and 4th choice keepers trying to get experience. They make mistakes (Foster) and because they don't play against us, you can also argue that all the other teams have an advantage over us.
 
Looks like only 3 match ban for Ball's dirty stamp on Ronaldo. Ridiculous but not surprising.

Navarro(??) recieved an 8 match ban for his punch in the Valencia-Inter fight.

Hell even Adebayor ended up banned for 4 matches for being sent off for mistaken identity, then refusing to leave the field.

FA need to get their priorities right. Violent acts should recieve big match bans, not minor misdemeanours.
 
We should break the twat's leg next season amd say "But, I was going for the Ball ref!"

There was a case a few seasons ago, I can't remember which game, but someone got a 3 game ban for violent conduct which left a player injured. That player then missed the next 3 games which included a game against the other players biggest rivals and so the ban actually worked against the injured player's team.
 
I'd blame the idiot who agreed to the deal, not tell the FA or UEFA about it. Thats like agreeing to buy something off someone for a lot more than RRP and then moaning about it to your bank manager after realising how stupid that was.

Agree, but when someone is desperate enough and the other can then take advantage what is to stop them? Thats why the rules are in place, to stop these kind of things happening. But the problem now is that the prem has condoned this which can only lead to more of these dodgy situations in the future. Same as the goalie example (although thats only loan deals), i think liverpool had the same with both kirkland and carson. Goalies that are doing really well for their clubs (whether they are 2nd/3rd/4th choice to the big clubs isnt really an issue as they are important to the small clubs they are playing for) then cant play against the team they are loaned from, giving the big team an advantage. Offcourse you can argue the, but then they should look for someone else, which is true. But again you come back to the desperate argument, they need a good goalie and the big clubs have them in reserve and they cant afford to go out and buy them, which means they accept a loan deal with the non playing clause.

"But, I was going for the Ball ref!"

lol
 
Theres another good article by this guy in the telegraph about Loan deals and how they are dodgy. For example United loaning out two keepers that are first team regulars for their perspective clubs in the same competing division, that means that in four matches out of 38 in the league United will play opposition with weak goalkeepers, but the other title challengers wont.

Its taking advantage of the rules somewhat, and should be stopped. And of course the same could be said for any top club loaning out players in the same division with the exception being that a keeping position is an important facet of any team in the top flight.


Loan deals are necessary for development of players not quite in the first team, and benefit both parties, see WBA almost being kept up by Kieran Richardson (i know, wtf happened!?) and Fosters/Carsons contributions to the two relegated already. And of course you also can'thave them playing against their parent club, because that forces them into a really bad situation. So unless you're proposing to ban loan deals, then I'm not sure why you're complaning.

As for the Howard thing, I'd imagine the conversation went like this:
Everton - We want to sign Howard now, permanently.
United - Well we don't think he should play against us in April, because he's one of ours etc, so no sorry.
Everton - Well we really want to sign him, so what if he doesn't play.
United - Okay, that sounds good, are you happy with that?
Everton - Yep we're happy.
Both - Deal.

Is that sinister, wrong, evil and immoral? Probably not if United don't win the premiership. Your arguement that Everton's second choice goalie was rubbish and cost them the match would have been multiplied by a thousand if it had been Tim Howard, ex-man utd player up til a month ago, who dropped the ball. Can only imagine Jose then...
 
Just a bitter and twisted scouser who looks for any reason to put down United... Antred!

Dj
 
Just a bitter and twisted scouser who looks for any reason to put down United... Antred!

Groans........ita not about utd, as everton are as much responsible if not more.

As for the Howard thing, I'd imagine the conversation went like this:
Everton - We want to sign Howard now, permanently.
United - Well we don't think he should play against us in April, because he's one of ours etc, so no sorry.
Everton - Well we really want to sign him, so what if he doesn't play.
United - Okay, that sounds good, are you happy with that?
Everton - Yep we're happy.
Both - Deal.

Which in some regards is blackmail. Thats the whole reason they have these rules. Everton have to agree to something that they dont really want to, but do it as they have no choice. Being able to do these kind of deals lessens the integrity and fairness in the games. Thats what going on, and whether its manu or not isnt really relevent.

Just cause a scouser posted it all you guys can see is some bitter angle, stop being so ignorant and actually look at what it means!

Also in response to, i think runeedge, about they dont need to buy a player and can look for someone else. Thats another problem, there's only a limited number of players, and if howard is the ONE then that means they only have one option. And are therefore forced to agree to this type of deal
 
Groans........ita not about utd, as everton are as much responsible if not more.



Which in some regards is blackmail. Thats the whole reason they have these rules. Everton have to agree to something that they dont really want to, but do it as they have no choice. Being able to do these kind of deals lessens the integrity and fairness in the games. Thats what going on, and whether its manu or not isnt really relevent.


No it's not, if United own a player, Everton want him, it's United's decision whether or not to sell him. Just like any sale, both sides make demands. It's called negotiating. Not blackmail.
 
Dodgy shit like this has been going on for years. What about feeder clubs? I think Liverpool started that with Crewe but United have deals with a few teams as well as Chelsea too. I'm sure there are others that are not so well known.
 
"I'll only leave Portugal to play for a club like United," Nani told the Daily Mirror.

"The Premiership is spectacular and to be the next Cristiano would be a dream."

Erm. So given it sounds like a go, how good is this guy? Is he Ronaldo's level when he left Sporting or better? Is he strong enough fro the prem?
 
Back
Top Bottom