http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=428078&cc=5901 I thought it was a little weird that such an arrangement could be in place after a permanent deal was announced. I can also believe that a "gentleman's agreement" was in place between SAF and Moyes (they seem to be friends, Moyes frequently getting advice from SAF in the past, yes?) in order to have the transfer agreed before the window opens... (note wild speculation) And given Turner's howler, which arguably led to the ManU comeback, one can see the argument that the decision to leave Howard out had a potentially major impact on the EPL standings, as Chelsea would have a substantially larger chance of overcoming ManU in the table. I wonder how much trouble ManU and Everton can get into from this...but how can they prove anything?
It's actually very similar to the Tevez situation with regard to third parties having controlling interest. The actual agreement when the transfer was made permanent was that Howard could not play in the Everton v United fixture IF, and only if, Man United were still in a title race. Pretty controversial.
It was my understanding that since the permanent deal happened after the transfer window closed, Everton were still bound by the terms of the loan agreement until the window opened again. If that's the case, I don't see how we can be accused of any wrong-doing.
Looks like you're right, but we're clear anyway. "Everton were free to play Tim Howard in their fixture against Manchester United had they so wished - and this has been confirmed by both clubs." http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/fapl-clear-blues-over-howard-switch.html
I think our relationship with Man United is a bit too close. Not playing our goalie even though he was legiable to play? Conceding four goals and 3 points, and a fifth place finish, aswell as upto $2m if we finish 7th and not 5th.
You don't understand. Had that agreement not been reached, we would still have him on loan and not permanent, which would mean come July, we'd have faced all sorts of competition for his signature, not to mention about another £1m on the price tag. And on top of that he wouldn't he wouldn't have played the game vs United anyway. We do had quite a vested interest in Man United though, since we have about £5m of the Rooney money still not released.
Please just read my post! Jeez . Legally he was allowed to play. But it had been verbally agreed between Ferguson and Moyes that he wouldn't as part of the deal to make the transfer permanent.
Which is slightly suss. Teams agreeing with other teams not to play certain players against them, when there's no legal reason for them not to... it's one step away from collusion, really. That said, all in all this case was a bit of a storm in a teacup.
I don't really see a problem with what happened. My guess is once Everton & ManUtd had agreed on the financials of the deal, ManUtd told the Toffees they could purchase him right then if they liked, provided he doesn't play against us. Or if that wasn't agreeable, then they'd wait until after the ManU-Everton game to sell him to the Toffees.
Practically speaking, there isn't a problem in this case for precisely that reason. Howard was never going to play in that game anyway. On the other hand, I don't like this sort of thing on principle. Informal agreements between clubs about team selection is a pretty grey area... I'd like to steer as clear of it as possible. Like I said, storm in a teacup. I understand the point of contention, but I think in this case it's probably a little irrelevant in practical terms.