Tottenham Hotspur Breaches of Jermain Defoe Transfer - Times Exclusive

[chaching]

It sounds to me we employed a registered agent and had a contractual arrangement with them (that is who we paid) . That agent employed a non registered agent to help him as he had a relationship with defoe. The FA also had the details and obviously didn't see much of an issue. Seems like a bit of a non story to me. If anything surely the biggest slap on the wrist has to go to the original agent.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Sadly it's the state of modern football that I just assume we've been doing something hugely wrong for ages.

Its basically naive to think otherwise.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

I don’t think they will escape. The problem is City and Chelsea are 115 charges and Chavs might apparently be more than 115 charges involving off shore accounts, made up sponsorship and potential tax evasion. They are massive breaches and could end up with criminal not just FFP charges with directors going to jail. They take a huge amount of time and you can’t really do them drip feed, they have to be done as one to get the correct punishment.

The cases such as Everton is far more basic and our case looks even simpler then Everton’s and isn’t even FFP related as FFP didn’t exist then. This is the type of event you get a transfer ban for or maybe fine but if we did it then a transfer ban or fine is what we will get.

no-one is pretending a deal not done exactly by the books is the same as massive fraud over a decade like City or Chelsea. It’s like comparing stealing an apple with terrorism and murder but that aside there are still proportional punishments for stealing an apple just as terrorism also has its punishment.

Chelsea could throw Abramovich under the bus, to minimise any punishments on the club and other individuals, in the knowledge that Russia wouldn't extradite him to the UK.

 

[easley91]

I'm sure if you look hard enough into it you'll find a breach of a rule or two by most clubs at some point.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

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

Was the selling club punished more severely than Arsenal in that case?

 

[Metalhead]

F**k me, how long ago?

 

[For the love of Spurs]

Chelsea could throw Abramovich under the bus, to minimise any punishments on the club and other individuals, in the knowledge that Russia wouldn't extradite him to the UK.

I believe charges are set against club for FFP breaches not the owners but yes you’re right in the case of actual criminal events such as tax fraud that would go against individuals as well. Abramovich might be out of reach but any Chelsea board members that where involved at the time and still in the U.K. I would imagine could be charged.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Lawton's comments about Luton's 10-point deduction are so sensationalist. Luton was fined and given the points deduction as punishment for a combined 15 charges. The points deduction was relating to administration and serious financial breaches, not the use of an unlicensed agent.

 

[Metalhead]

So this is to do with us selling Defoe to Portsmouth?

I love the way people are just saying "oh well that's a points deduction then..."

Where's the evidence of that?

Only two teams before Everton have received a points deduction in the prem, one for not fulfilling a match and the other for going into administration.

Other transfer related issues like Arsenal with Chambers and West Ham with Mascherano and Tevez had fines.

Don't see how this is an outlier for a points deduction

I'm not sure whether you've noticed but some people on here have a tendency towards the melodramatic.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

Lawton's comments about Luton's 10-point deduction are so sensationalist. Luton was fined and given the points deduction as punishment for a combined 15 charges. The points deduction was relating to administration and serious financial breaches, not the use of an unlicensed agent.

It’s really weird, on precedence we should get a fine if proven, say 100-600k type level same as Arsenal or Leeds who did similar with unregistered agents. Which is small fry, it makes me suspicious for such a small non-FFP issue relative to City/Chelsea or even Everton for that matter why it’s been blown up by Lawton, he either doesn’t understand the magnitude which to me seems unlikely or there is an angle behind it.

got no issue with us taking our punishment but punishment should be consistent and our case would be a fine.

 

[only1waddle]

It’s really weird, on precedence we should get a fine if proven, say 100-600k type level same as Arsenal or Leeds who did similar with unregistered agents. Which is small fry, it makes me suspicious for such a small non-FFP issue relative to City/Chelsea or even Everton for that matter why it’s been blown up by Lawton, he either doesn’t understand the magnitude which to me seems unlikely or there is an angle behind it.

got no issue with us taking our punishment but punishment should be consistent and our case would be a fine.

The main thing here is that there was no payment registered between the licensed agent and Mitchell, only phone records of involvement by Mitchell, the only breach they will have evidence of is there being no contract for the licensed agent, this doesn't even look like the same level as the Chambers deal, its literally just a formal paperwork issue based on existing evidence.
Adjust for inflation, £150k fine and move on.

 

[kd2000]

F**k me, how long ago?

Yep, some on here were but a little tadpole in their dads nutsack

 

[Frank Blank]

Potential punishments include Points Deductions, Transfer Bans & Relegation.....

My favourite in the article was the following gem. Especially the bolded bit.

However, the panel also heard that Thomas, a close friend of Defoe, dealt directly with Peters, Levy, Defoe and Redknapp on transfer deadline day in January 2008, when the move to Portsmouth took place.

During the hearing Levy was also challenged on the lack of a legitimate representation contract with Peters. He told the private arbitration panel he did not know the rules, despite negotiating the vast majority of Tottenham’s transfer deals. Levy said FA agent regulations were a matter for the club secretary and when he was pressed by the panel on the fact that the letter did not comply with FA regulations, Levy said he did not know.

 

[SpursSince1980]

☕️

 

[cjsimba]

☕️

Yep, all just cloudy coffee

 

[Misfit]

If anyone should be investigated it should be the licensed agent for engaging someone blacklisted.

 

[Finchyid]

This just feels like a story born by boredom of the international break

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

My favourite in the article was the following gem. Especially the bolded bit.

However, the panel also heard that Thomas, a close friend of Defoe, dealt directly with Peters, Levy, Defoe and Redknapp on transfer deadline day in January 2008, when the move to Portsmouth took place.

During the hearing Levy was also challenged on the lack of a legitimate representation contract with Peters. He told the private arbitration panel he did not know the rules, despite negotiating the vast majority of Tottenham’s transfer deals. Levy said FA agent regulations were a matter for the club secretary and when he was pressed by the panel on the fact that the letter did not comply with FA regulations, Levy said he did not know.

In fairness to Levy, there was a lot of ambiguity in 2008 with regards to agent representation following a Birmingham City FC vs HMRC tax tribunal in 2007 regarding recovery of VAT as input tax........where Karen Brady had effectively claimed that the players agent worked (at least in part) for the club, and therefore the club should be able to recover the VAT on agent fees.

 

[thfcsteff]

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!

Very honourable and chivalrous of you Trix. But be honest with yourself; how many transfers from that era particularly, if investigated in any depth, would reveal 'broken rules'. And yes yes, you can 'only take responsibility for your own actions' (something I live my life by).

But the dialectic here is that for this specific deal to 'enjoy' such a graphically-enhanced (as in pretty collage) resurrection in The Times would suggest to even the average cloth baseball cap or beanie wearer that there is an 'agenda' behind it. I am going to assume you know how the media works given your ITK posts; I do, that's for sure. Potentially dodgy transfers in that era -especially ones which were investigated at the time and for whatever reason deemed not fit for punishment- are not like discovering Cambridge Analytica back in 2016 or whenever that story broke (and even that was something which took maybe 5 or 6 years of deep research). I think it is fair to say that someone has had details of this whole thing for sometime, and has either dropped it on a desk for whatever reason or decided to publish it for whatever reason.

So yes, responsibilities and all that for oneself, but frankly, I'd be alarmed if people didn't speculate. Broken rules? Perhaps. But if one doesn't question -at this specific time in football- the consistency of investigation/breaking 'stories', then I personally believe one is missing a trick, and quite possibly the rules of engagement with these sorts of situations.

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

Yep, some on here were but a little tadpole in their dads nutsack

Some? You seem to have misspelt Most