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

Manchester United Thread

Well, I think he's better at crossing, doesn't do as many tricks and stepovers as Ronaldo did at the same age, but that's probably a good thing right? Ultimately he might not be as talented as Ronaldo, but he's up there, time will tell.

"Strong enough for the prem?" Just the other day I was commenting with a friend that Nani gained a lot of muscle this season, maybe he was already thinking about a possible move to England, although muscle is good anywhere.

He'd be the perfect replacement for Giggs.

Nani, Ronaldo, Simao and Quaresma are the fab four wingers of Portugal. :)

Edit: View Nani vs Belgium here > http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1k6gz_nani-vs-belgium
 
Last edited:
He has a nice acceleration from a standing point. The great thing is that he'll probably improve so much more under the guidence of Sir Alex if he's anything like Ronaldo.

In other news, Tevez was apparently celebrating with all the Man Utd players yesterday. Not sure why but common sense would tell you that we're probably talking to his agent. Theres a picture of it in the Evening Standard but I couldnt find anything online.

EDIT
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport...moaning,+says+Premier+League+chief/article.do
Thats the best I can do.
 
Fucking hell..

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/TevezES_468x872.jpg
TevezES_468x872.jpgp
 
marshhb3.jpg

Carlos Tevez on a mad rampage in the middle of London
(shortly after the West Ham investigation which deducts 10pts and relegates them)

tevezxx7.jpg

Marshmallow Man signs autographs outside his home in San Francisco
(shortly after the filming of Ghostbuster 2007, which uses Carlos Tevez as a stunt-double)
 
Jack Bauer said:
marshhb3.jpg

Carlos Tevez on a mad rampage in the middle of London
(shortly after the West Ham investigation which deducts 10pts and relegates them)

tevezxx7.jpg

Marshmallow Man signs autographs outside his home in San Francisco
(shortly after the filming of Ghostbuster 2007, which uses Carlos Tevez as a stunt-double)
Click to expand...
hahahaah good one jack! he looks like he would fit in with bebo in Miami....
 
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.
Click to expand...

Its not about the negotiating (thats about fee's bonus' etc), its that they have a demand that gets forfilled after he is a everton player. Thereby influencing another team after the fact (the contract signing), which should mean everton can do with him what they want. But because of a verbal deal they have to do something they dont want to because they wanted the player.

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.
Click to expand...

Agree, although they are usually deal's with lower league and / or foreign teams. So they dont normally play those teams, although with cup draws it can get dodgy. Whenever a team as control (whatever degree) over another teams player it can never be good imo. Loan deals are also like that, although the player then still is under the clubs ownership so they can then say what he can or cant do. Its still a bit dubious when teams/players have to play each other with those players.
 
tiktiktiktik said:
Its not about the negotiating (thats about fee's bonus' etc), its that they have a demand that gets forfilled after he is a everton player. Thereby influencing another team after the fact (the contract signing), which should mean everton can do with him what they want. But because of a verbal deal they have to do something they dont want to because they wanted the player.
Click to expand...
:roll:
We're not making them do something they dont want to. If we were, Everton wouldnt agree to the verbal deal in the first place. First of all, they arent stupid and secondly, I'm sure they knew what they were getting themselves into before they agreed to what they did.
How hard is that to understand?
 
So are you trying to say everton wanted to not play howard then?! Offcourse not, they wanted to play him but the kept their part of the deal.

Honestly, how hard is it to understand..........

Its not about whether everton have a problem with not playing howard, after all they agreed to it in the first place, and with there not being a contract, only a verbal agreement, they could have played him and just accepted the possible negative concequences when they try to buy another manu player.

Thats the whole point of the rules, so players under contract cant be manipulated by their old clubs. The premierleague has already stated that such a verbal agreement is against the rules, which would mean both manu and everton should be punished. Whether its a warning, fine, or points deduction i really dont care. Its the fact that the premierleague has come out and stated that nothing is wrong with the deal, which goes against what their rules state and what they themselves have said, which in turn would leave the possibility open for more such dodgy deals. Even encouringing them, as the precedent has been set.

I dont care about howard not playing, manu winning or them not getting a warning / fine. What bugs me is the premierleagues' lazyness, or lack of balls, to actually follow their own rules.

Thats what im trying to get at, and all the responses so far have been either bitter scouser at antred or people saying everton agreed to it so it doesnt matter. Thats not the actual point.
 
tiktiktiktik said:
So are you trying to say everton wanted to not play howard then?! Offcourse not, they wanted to play him but the kept their part of the deal.
Click to expand...
](*,)
For f*cks sake, how stupid are you? If Everton did want Howard to play, why would they agree to the deal in the first place? Everton knew from the start that they wont be allowed to so why didnt they say something when they first signed him?
Its not as if we sold the player and then said "Oh, by the way, Howard cant play against us" when its too late to go back on the deal. Everton knew what the deal was and the deal was the not let him play against us. If you think thats unfair, blame Everton for being stupid enough to agree with it.
Do you think anyone cares if deep inside they wanted to play him? Of course not.

And no, this isnt a dodgy deal cuz the only thing making it controversial is the fact that it wasnt in writing. All you have to do with get a piece of paper with everyones signature and everything would be OK. A dodgy deal would be one where either one of the clubs werent aware of the details or there was a misunderstanding. But there isnt one.

Its funny how shit like this comes out after we've won the title. I guess we could all expect more from the likes of you, Antred and the rest of the anti-United gang.
 
Isn't the whole quick slip Mascherano into Liverpool thing even more dodgy?
Click to expand...

Probably, and im not sure how that worked as west ham have been fined for it. But its still a loan deal as far as i know, so he's still a west ham player.

And no, this isnt a dodgy deal cuz the only thing making it controversial is the fact that it wasnt in writing. All you have to do with get a piece of paper with everyones signature and everything would be OK. A dodgy deal would be one where either one of the clubs werent aware of the details or there was a misunderstanding. But there isnt one.
Click to expand...

League probe Howard omission
By Mark Buckingham - Created on 6 May 2007

The Premier League is to investigate why Tim Howard did not play in Everton's 4-2 defeat to Manchester United.

Howard was left out of the game at Goodison Park last weekend as part of the agreement which saw the keeper complete a permanent switch to The Toffees in February.

The United States international originally joined Everton on loan, but signed a five-year contract after United accepted an undisclosed offer.

Toffees boss David Moyes confirmed prior to the game that Howard would be omitted from his side as a result of the deal struck with the Premiership leaders.

But the Premier League has confirmed it will ask the two clubs about the agreement as it could contravene league regulations.

"We will be contacting both clubs as a matter of urgency to find out what has gone on," Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson told the News of the World.

"As Howard's is a permanent transfer there is no reason why he could not have played against Manchester United.

"Had such a clause been included in the transfer we would not have allowed it - it would have been a clear case of third party interference. Which would mean in writing, which according to you would have made it ok, which they are saying isnt the case

"We certainly have no record of an agreement between Everton and United that Howard could not play on April 28."

West Ham United were recently fined £5.5million for fielding Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano, who were owned by a third party.
Click to expand...
http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx...lid=1&lid=&title=League+probe+Howard+omission

At runeedge, how do it get the brick wall smily? Its definitly needed :lol: As ive already said, its not about everton and manu agreeing to the deal, they both got something out of it and they are pleased / accept it. But there is a reason why those "deals" (not be allowed to play) are against the rules, as the game at everton showed. Offcourse you can argue what you want about not being able to say how the game would have gone with howard in goal, and thats correct. But surely you would also agree that had everton been free, they would have chosen howard to play.

Anyway, ill leave it at that as the whole point im trying to make is going over you head.
 
I thought the whole argument was that West ham didn't own these players, if that's the case how can they loan out someone they don't own?
Actually Tik I agree with you over the Tim Howard case, I'd go even further by saying that i don't think Premiership clubs should be allowed to loan players out to teams competing in the same division.
 
Yeah im not sure about the whole west ham / argies deal. I think there is 3rd party ownership going on and west ham have loaned them, licensed them to play or something. Read today, rumours, that tevez is already being offered to clubs by his owners (some media / sports company), so not west ham. If mascherano is owned in the same way it could get really dodgy next season, when he's at the end of his loan. Its a mess really. Clubs should have full control / ownership over the players they own.

Would also agree on the same division loan dealings, its always gonna have some degree of "dodgyness".
 
t@Tiktiktik

The reason no one wrote it down is as stated, it then wouldn't have been valid and 'legal'. However, Everton can do with their player whatever they want, once he's theirs. You're also right, they could have played him, and there would have been nought United could do about it. This is precisely the reason why there's nothign actually 'wrong' with the arrangement. Say David Moyes plays Howard, negating United's verbal, or friendly, agreement. Is there any legal action united can take? No, because it's not a legally binding deal.

On the flip side, if Everton decide not to play him, there's also no legal documentation saying they couldn't. It is left to their choice. And as he is their player, they have every right ot make that choice.

Therefore, if there is no legal punishment for not adhering to the 'clause' becuase it actually isn't a documented 'clause' then surely there is nothing legally wrong with it.

I mean, United could have simply said dont' play him or we wont' sell til July, and Everton could have walked away.
 
I did say i wasnt going to post any more on it, but as you directed at me ill respond ;)

I agree, but should they be able to make such an agreement in the first place? Its just a slippery road when the prem says its ok to make such deals now. Legally there is nothing anybody can say, as there is nothing signed. Its mostly from a sporting fairness (however much of that there is still left is another matter) point of view that it could cause problems.

What the main consequence could have been for everton is a poor relationship with manu regarding future transfers.

But again thats speculation. And its between them anyway.

Ill use the eto example to turn it around and make another.

Say its this time next year:
Manu have eto, but they have a verbal agreement not play him against barce this season. During the past 2 months they have been negotiating a transfer for a left sided winger, as a replacement for giggs who is getting a bit on, everything has been agreed, player fee, contracts, etc and all they now have to do is wait for the transfer window to open. In 2 weeks they play each other in the CL final and a barca representative reminds manu of their agreement to not play eto, and hints that if they do they, under no circumstances, will allow the agreed transfer to go through, meaning manu have possibly wasted their time for a player over the past 2 months. Which in turn means barca can influence manu, had there never been such an agreement the transfer would have been "objective" and only about the fee and the team he's going to etc. Now though they have a certain level of control.

Which brings you to the following, is it fair for barca to be able to put manu i such a situation? And is it fair that manu have let themselves been put in such a situation? I mean they have both agreed to it, so really between them there shouldnt be a problem. But from a bigger perspective it can jeapordise (sp?) the intergrity of the final and in turn the competition.

If you placed it from another position, manu are playing barca in the final and they say: if you play rooney we wont let you sign "pablo lefty". Wouldnt everyone be up in arms at the cheek of such a demand?

Essentially its about keeping the integrity of the games, deals like this can jeopordise it. Although i also agree with your statement about there being no legal document, meaning they cant really do anything about it. But that doesnt make it correct.
 
Has he actuallt signed full time. Have they paid? Maybe Howard is still on loan and the transfer will go through properly in the summer. Who knows?
 
Thats what I thought. Didnt know they actually signed him. So how much did we sell him for?
 
I think he signed full time back in february, and to close the deal there and then Utd "asked" Everton not to play him against us this season, which in all honesty is a bit shady.On another note Tik, are Carson and Kirkland still Liverpool keepers or have they been sold and did they feature against you this season?
 
Kirkland sold, Carson loaned - won't play on Sunday because of the loan agreement with Charlton.
 
Mack said:
Better late than never congrats on the title guys, your all still scum though ;)
Click to expand...

Cheers Mack, also congrats to you's lot for your win in the Manchester Senior cup on tuesday night, i've heard your organising an open top bus to parade your trophy through the city.What with the Thomas Cook trophy from last season and now this you lot are really catching us up in the trophy room.
 
I think you will find we lost the Thomas Cook trophy this year, im hoping we can bring it back home in the summer............:)
 
oh man dirty cheats!!!!
Click to expand...

Indeed, had charlton not already been relegated this would have been another reason to sort out these deals. From what ive read and heard carson has been doing really well for charlton and one of the reason they were still in it to beat relegation till last week. Imagine if they were in westham's/wigan's position and had to play this last game without their top goalie. Out of order imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom