Could we have points deducted for this Tim Howard thing?

http://football.guardian.co.uk/break...611156,00.html


Bloody hope not

Oh Christ.

I remember all of us wondering at the time why we made the deal, instead of waiting for the end of the season.

Hope this just goes away. Anyway, West Ham appear to have set the precedent. No points deduction, just a fine.

if this WHU shit hits the fan in the summer...then they should remove ALL of their results from the table.....therefore taking 6 points off chelsea (as i think they beat em twice didnt they ?).....so if they then project the points deduction to us v everton....we would lose 3 points

sorted

The Andy Cole/Keith Gillespie "deal" should protect us.

If United's lawyers are even half-decent they will have ensured it was a gentleman's agreement rather than a clause.

Many transfers include such agreements.

If Tevez can play all season long without West Ham incurring a points deduction, especially when West Ham knowingly hid the details from the Premier League, United benefiting from the absence of Howard in one game should not be punished any more strongly... especially when the title is at stake.

They couldn't award a title by default, but then it would be the first time United were judged more harshly than others.

we'll be £#%&!ing relegated.

well, west ham are going to be.

This has come about because that gigantic #@&%! Martin Samuel has been moaning all week on TV and in The Times about us loaning out keepers, and the terms of the Howard transfer. God I hate that fat shit. I don't think anything will come of it, the deal was announced after the transfer window had closed, so how could it have been a permanent transfer? Surely he's still technically on loan?

It would cause far to much controversy to deduct points off us in a title race, especially considering they didn't to West Ham. Although we are Manchester United.

This will be much ado about nothing. I'd be surprised if it was even given any publicity in the media.

It's probably just like those agreements when a player is transferred and then doesn't play against his former club a week later.

don't worry about it. Nothing will come of it!

News of the world. NFT.

It's a loan deal until the end of the season, the transfer is then finalised and Howard will sign his new permanent contract.

Under premier league rules, a player can not play against the club that holds his registration, which we currently do.

The sad fact is that Fat, useless, hairy £#%&!wit journalists don't know the rules of the game. Let's not let facts get in the way of an opportunity to undermine United's achievements though.

Oh, and Samuel, you sweaty bastard cockney @#%&!, this means you, you fat waste of space.

Dunk - do you know that for a fact though?

At the very least I would assume it would be something like a gentlemens agreement not to play him against us this season. I hope.

This has been instigated by Martin Samuel hasn't it, a West Ham fan? I remember last Sunday on Jimmy Hill the other 3 panelists were hammering them and saying they should be deducted points. He jumped in and defended them saying we should be docked points for Howard and Foster's deals. Third party interference etc.

He hasn't shut up about it all week. Get to a gym and lose some weight.

I don't remember him complaining one bit last season when Chelsea had their fifth columns scattered throughout the league.

Edit: Someone send this to Martin http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....nent_deal.html

I'm not sure, but as the deal was completed after the close of the transfer deal and you cannot cancel loan deals outside of that window or sign players outside that window, it stands to reason that the deal, although done, won't be completed until the summer.

Plus, it was reported at the time as loan deal until the end of the season, Howards contract to begin in June, or something like that.

OK I am nervous again. I appreciate Whalefish and Dunks soothing comments but can someone please give me a categoric assurance that this cannot translate into points deduction.

This season has me a wreck.

According to the NOTW a loan deal can be converted to a perm transfer at any stage during the season, not just during the transfer window. According to the Premier League, the transfer was done in Feb.

The West Ham situation was different, they don't allow you to sign players owned by outside parties so as to avoid potential third party interference. They are saying that we DID interfere. I'm no lawyer but I would say that they would see this as more serious than potentially interferring.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

According to the NOTW a loan deal can be converted to a perm transfer at any stage during the season, not just during the transfer window. According to the Premier League, the transfer was done in Feb.

The West Ham situation was different, they don't allow you to sign players owned by outside parties so as to avoid potential third party interference. They are saying that we DID interfere. I'm no lawyer but I would say that they would see this as more serious than potentially interferring.

Now this post has realyy upset me.

To the point where my typing skills are impaired.

We'll see. Don't bother reading the rulebooks or searching for precendents for similar offences, because as we know, they like to invent new rules and punishments where United are concerned.

Originally Posted by captain scarlet

Now this post has realyy upset me.

I get that a lot.