Times article - Man United's dodgy dealings

[zereshk-ali]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article1764004.ece

This is so corrupt. There was something very fishy about the whole game - both should be docked points and fined but as usual we get the FA whitewash.

[Suprah]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle1764004.ece
This is so corrupt. There was something very fishy about the whole game - both should be docked points and fined but as usual we get the FA whitewash.

Problems would have arisen if United and Everton had put this agreement for not using Tim Howard for the game a few days back in-writing which was a breach of FA rules citing third party intervention. Since there was nothing written about this when the deal was made permanent, hence no 3rd party intervention of player was involved (unlike West Ham where Tevez and Mascherano had their part of their contract rights under Joorabchian still).

So Everton were free to use Howard on their own will, as he is their player now, and even if it was a so-called verbal "gentleman's agreement" to thank United first allowing Howard to join them on-loan in the first place followed by the permanent deal WITHOUT any specific written and signed agreement over this matter...then the FA has NO CASE against both parties after both sides clarified their stance.

Had there been presence of a written condition from United about Howard in his transfer documents for Everton about him not playing against them a few days back...THEN both sides would have been in trouble - which was surely not the case and hence no rules were broken.

Case closed.

[zereshk-ali]

case not closed. Read the article!

The fact that the FA makes the distinction that it makes a difference if the deal was in writing or not is a white wash.

What if Sheffield United and Wigan conspire via a "gentleman's agreement" that if West Ham are losing to Man United in the last 5 mins that they would make sure Wigan win the match and send West Ham down? Is that ok since it wasn't agreed in writing?

Or that Everton continue to field weakened teams against United in Championship deciders because it is worth money to them (via a gentleman's agreement). The fact that it is not in writing should not make any difference - there is clearly 3rd party interference which borders on bribery.

Besides, it is clearly written in Everton's deal in the Rooney transfer with Manchester United that they will benefit financially from Manchester United winning the title. The fact that they have then decided to field a weakened team in a crucial fixture for both sides (whether via a gentleman's agreement or not) should mean punishment for both sides. The clause in the Rooney deal is a case of conflict of interest and the fact that it has never been investigated or deemed illegal is very embarassing for the FA and English football.

[Adesor Vafaseya]

Case closed.

well said!

[chuck bass]

old :P

and there's no way they can prove it so nothing can be done

[zereshk-ali]

old :P

and there's no way they can prove it so nothing can be done

?? both clubs have admitted it was a gentleman's agreement. the FA already know this was the case - they actually persuaded United not to put it in writing at the time of the contract.