Tottenham Hotspur Breaches of Jermain Defoe Transfer - Times Exclusive

[Wick3d]

If new evidence has been presented, then it is fair game. If it is nothing, then the FA can't do anything.

This case being in the spotlight only occurred due to them going through legal proceedings. However, cases like this will shape public opinion regarding the type of punishments teams get when breaching the rules. In this scenario, other clubs facing more serious breaches will have their knives out as they see us getting away with it. I suspect if this story is serious again, Levy will soften any hard lines he may have when it comes to punishing any other rule breakers. As you never know who you will need as an ally if it comes back to bite us!

 

[Rocksuperstar]

Wait... so... I'm confused.

Was this back when there were 240 pence in the pound? Who's been dusting at the FA??

 

[Viking78]

This is really a bizarre story. From the Talksport article it seems like this is a one man hatchet job by Matt Lawton.
The FA are saying they will review the case if there is new evidence, but Lawton is saying that the FA just shelved the initial case folliwing the arbitration which Sky Andrews won.

 

[Hercules]

New evidence? Really? They knew everything all along. I am not buying this at all.

 

[Riandor]

Wait, so this is something from HOW long ago? Somerthing that the FA knew about at the time and did nothing but NOW they feel like retrospective action?

Seriously...

 

[rossdapep]

This is really a bizarre story. From the Talksport article it seems like this is a one man hatchet job by Matt Lawton.
The FA are saying they will review the case if there is new evidence, but Lawton is saying that the FA just shelved the initial case folliwing the arbitration which Sky Andrews won.

...and we know Lawton ahs it in for Levy

 

[Japhet]

Seems to me that somebody is busy digging up any old bit of info about any club to support the 'they're all at it' defence of a certain 2 clubs. Expect more in the coming weeks.

 

[lincspurs]

Just caught a flare up between Jordan & Andrews on Talksport, Simon was calling him out because Andrews was pushing the “always trying to get his players to honour their contracts” when in his (Simon’s) experience most agents were pushing for moves as this was their main form of income.

 

[the yid]

People need to get their tinfoil hats off here. No one has been searching through past records trying everything they could to uncover something shady. It's come to light in a completely different legal case between Defoe and his then actual agent who he was legally contracted to at the time.

Honestly some of you sound just like the Chelsea and City fans you complain about every day trying to mentally navigate round the fact we may have broken the rules. So what if they've done more, blah blah blah. If we are in the wrong we have to accept it otherwise we are just like them!

I 100% agree but it should be consistent across the board and all clubs who breach such rules should be punished where so many appear to be getting a way with a lot. A very very good friend of mines nephew was on the books at Chelsea he's like 9 or something City have 100% tapped him up offering my mates sister and fella £30k a year wage and a house to come to City which they accepted this summer and off they moved to Manchester but to get around the fact Chelsea knew about it he's currently playing in Red which United obviously have no idea about and in the summer the lad will leave United and join Citys academy. This is just 1 that I know of I'm sure there's more and worse stories, if I know about it I'm sure the PL know about it so why aren't they being punished

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

If you read the statement from the FA, it says that they will investigate if new evidence is presented. There is nothing within the article that suggests new evidence has come to light, that wasn't before the arbitration panel. The findings of the panel appear to have been passed to the FA at the time, and the FA decided not to take any action (the insinuation is that they then decsion maker at the FA was in on it, as he moved to to Pompy a few months later).

I'm struggling to see where the new evidence is, unless the arbitration panel kept something from the FA (which would be strange). There has not been a 'leak' or any new litigation which would give rise to new evidence. It just appears that the Times have got details of the old arbitration documents, which the FA would already have had sight of. The Times have made a strory out of it by saying the FA will re-investigate, but there is a big caveat on that statement.

It may be desireable for people with a vested interst for this to be re-opened (and of course, it doesn't look fantastic), but I can't see why it would be looked at again, unless I am missing something obvious?

Can somebody point me to where this 'new evidence' is refferenced?

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

I blame Paratici

 

[lincspurs]

If you read the statement from the FA, it says that they will investigate if new evidence is presented. There is nothing within the article that suggests new evidence has come to light, that wasn't before the arbitration panel. The findings of the panel appear to have been passed to the FA at the time, and the FA decided not to take any action (the insinuation is that they then decsion maker at the FA was in on it, as he moved to to Pompy a few months later).

I'm struggling to see where the new evidence is, unless the arbitration panel kept something from the FA (which would be strange). There has not been a 'leak' or any new litigation which would give rise to new evidence. It just appears that the Times have got details of the old arbitration documents, which the FA would already have had sight of. The Times have made a strory out of it by saying the FA will re-investigate, but there is a big caveat on that statement.

It may be desireable for people with a vested interst for this to be re-opened (and of course, it doesn't look fantastic), but I can't see why it would be looked at again, unless I am missing something obvious?

Can somebody point me to where this 'new evidence' is refferenced?

Not sure whether it’s new evidence, but Lawton was pushing the fact that the FA never contacted Andrews re the transcripts of the phone conversations he obtained which proved Thomas had spoken to both clubs.

 

[Trix]

if we have done wrong then we should be punished but watching the Talksport when Simon Jordan comes on he clarifies that the club has to put the agent down, we put down on the paper work a licensed agent but that licensed agent was working with an unlicensed agent.

At that point Matt starting changing the conversation somewhat so to me it appears more a matter of the player and the agents involved. If we had put down the unlicensed agent as being the rep then yes we would be guilty but it doesn’t appear to be so.

It depends if there is any link to us paying or agreeing to pay said unlicensed agent. I'm under no doubt we are guilty of doing it, whether it can be proved is another story though.

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

Not sure whether it’s new evidence, but Lawton was pushing the fact that the FA never contacted Andrews re the transcripts of the phone conversations he obtained which proved Thomas had spoken to both clubs.

But that evidence was before the arbitation panel, wasn't it?

 

[Cavehillspur]

Arsenal got fined 60k for using an unlicensed agent....

Arsenal fined £60,000 after breaching agent rules in Calum Chambers deal

Arsenal were also given a warning in relation to the transfer of Calum Chambers from Southampton

www.theguardian.com

 

[For the love of Spurs]

Arsenal got fined 60k for using an unlicensed agent....

Arsenal fined £60,000 after breaching agent rules in Calum Chambers deal

Arsenal were also given a warning in relation to the transfer of Calum Chambers from Southampton

www.theguardian.com

someone correct me but that is almost 100% of what we are accused of.

 

[HildoSpur]

Arsenal got fined 60k for using an unlicensed agent....

Arsenal fined £60,000 after breaching agent rules in Calum Chambers deal

Arsenal were also given a warning in relation to the transfer of Calum Chambers from Southampton

www.theguardian.com

I'd take that right now all things considered.

 

[jordibwoy]

someone correct me but that is almost 100% of what we are accused of.

Only real difference I see is in our case, we were the selling club and they were buying. Whether that makes a difference is something I'll leave to those more equipped to answer that question

 

[easley91]

So the crux is if there is any new evidence. Is there actually any new evidence? Or is this just bringing up an old case which was already dismissed previously because it was mentioned in another proceeding?

 

[Misfit]

I hope they throw the book at Levy.