Who CAN they be talking about?

[Footstomper]

From the beeb



The final report mentions one further transfer which cannot be identified, as it is under investigation by a third party, presumably either the police or the Inland Revenue.

The inquiry made it clear from the start they would do this if they found any evidence or information that could be of a criminal nature.

Q. Why is the inquiry compelled to keep one of the deals under investigation confidential?


Almost certainly because it's forming part of a police investigation.

[norwaytips]

It aint us Stomps. It just has to be one, or two of the clubs mentioned.

Be a scream if Sheffield Utd were involved. Talking of which; the Middlesbrough fans have all gone very quiet in there name calling. Not seen the word cheat on their boards for 3 days now. Down to a gang of three.:p

[hammer_scout51]

Sheffield United are being investigated for the Kabba transfer to Watford. Apparently they stuck a clause in his contract not letting him play against them at the end of the season. This constitutes 3rd party interference. Martin Samuel writes about it in the Sunday rags.

[hammer_scout51]

c&p from the telegraph.

Sheffield United are being probed for allegedly breaking the same transfer rule as West Ham, it was reported last night.

United are battling to get West Ham thrown out of the Premiership for their involvement in the Carlos Tevez affair but now the Blades are under investigation into one of their own dealings.

The Premier League have demanded to know why the Yorkshire club stopped one of their former players, Steve Kabba, playing against them after he had gone to join Watford - which may amount to third party interference.

[west_ham]

Taken from Martin Samuels column in the NOTW tommorow. I like this guy more and more:

June 16, 2007
Blades know nothing about playing fair


THE Campaign for Fairness in Football gets its day in court tomorrow.

High on publicity and puffed up with righteous indignation, Sheffield United will hit town to demand reinstatement to the Premier League at the expense of West Ham, for a breach of the infamous rule U18. It is only fair, they will argue.

So let us look at what else Sheffield United would appear to believe is fair — because now it gets interesting.

Sheffield United think it is fair that they can sell striker Steve Kabba to Watford for £500,000, yet keep him.

Sheffield United think it is fair that he should play against three of the teams that were in the relegation mix in the last month of the season, but not them.

Sheffield United think it is fair that they should paint themselves as whiter than white, while officially admitting entering into an arrangement contravening the third party interference ruling that is at the heart of tomorrow's arbitration hearing.

Sheffield United have some serious questions to answer.

Ethics

Like at what point were they going to explain the strange circumstances surrounding Kabba's deal.

Like how they account for official club information stating Kabba could not play against his former club because of a clause that was part of his permanent transfer and would, therefore, be illegal.

Like how they can keep up the pretence that there is one set of villains in this story, West Ham, and all the other characters display the business ethics and demeanour of the lovechildren of Bob Cratchit and Mary Poppins.

In reality, they are motley crew, this Campaign for Fairness in Football.

Mohammed Al Fayed, chairman of Fulham, is a supporter. His transfer market activities were believed so fair that in January 2004, his club was temporarily suspended from the international market by FIFA over unpaid debts on the Steve Marlet deal.

Similar action was threatened over the transfer of Louis Saha. "I am a man of principle," he says.

Then there is Wigan Athletic chairman Dave Whe*an. He would know much about the boundaries of fairness having been fined £5.5m by the Office of Fair Trading for fixing the price of England and Manchester United shirts at his company JJB Sports.

Finally, spearheading the movement is that vested interest on legs, fair-minded Sheffield United plc chairman Kevin McCabe, who wants to re-referee the match after it has been played, to achieve the precise result needed for his team to win.

It is no longer suggested that West Ham should merely have points deducted, because a two-point penalty would not save McCabe's club.

A very specific punishment is required now — three points — the amount needed to keep Sheffield United up on goal difference and send West Ham down. McCabe has sanctimoniously demanded the league be adjusted on moral grounds in June, forgetting the skeleton in his own cupboard — 5ft 10in of striker, sold by Sheffield United to Watford on the condition he could not come back to haunt them.

March

Kabba played 14 out of 15 games for Watford immediately after his move. He played in a 1-0 win against West Ham, and 1-1 draws with Wigan and Manchester City.

But he couldn't feature in the defeat to Sheffield United on April 28 — because, according to Sheffield's website, his former club would not let him.



Manchester United insisted on a similar arrangement when goalkeeper Tim Howard moved to Everton — but at least chief executive David Gill did not march on Parliament bleating about fairness, when all the time his club had bent the rulebook until its spine snapped.

West Ham's actions over Tevez were wrong and the club was found guilty and punished.

Yet what is equally wrong is to pretend this is a rogue institution, out of step with its compatriots, when the merest scratch at the surface reveals an industry that is rife with suspicious discrepancies and transgressions.

Fairness, it seems, begins at home which, if he is to leave the Premier League with his credibility intact, is perhaps where McCabe and his fellow campaigners should stay tomorrow

[PSURoss]

Hypocracy rarely knows any bounds

[Footstomper]

O Tempora! O mores! The irony is delicious

[norwaytips]

This is turning into a wonderful thread. It could well feature in the Best of Big Soccer awards for 2007.:cool:

[Footstomper]

This is turning into a wonderful thread. It could well feature in the Best of Big Soccer awards for 2007.:cool:

Can we send the whole thread to Sean Bean?

[west_ham]

The Sky Sports News crew really interigate McCabe about the Kabba deal in the interview link I posted (on the other thread).

He obviously had little time beforehand to prepare a sound explanation so just confined his reponse to 'the deal was all above board'. Even when one of them highlighted that the Sheff Utd website stated that a clause in his contract stopped Kabba from playing for Watford against Sheff Utd, McCabe still just said it was legit.

He is well and truly backed into a corner now. He has been working hard to sail through to the compensation stage of this without anyone clicking onto the fact that this is what he really wants. He hasn't paid any attention to whether Sheff Utd are guilty of the same thing. Now it could all backfire.

Personally I would love it if the arbitration fails (which will happen no doubt), he gets zilch compensation and gets slapped with a dirty great fine for breaking rule U18. It would put a different slant on his whiter than white, 'we didn't break the rules' image.

[PSURoss]

It would be funny if the fine SU's transgression was close to the amount of compensation they get from the tribunal.

That would be classic