so if i find a loophole in the law to put my hand on someone else's money in other words robbing him .. will that be still ok as long i find a loophole in the law ?
Moderators have special dispensation to wind the Liverpool fans up. Especially when they bite so easily You did report us. The PL told you to put up or shut up. And, unsurprisingly, you shut up: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/14/premierleague.tottenhamhotspur Like you say with Arnesen - if you actually had any evidence, barring media speculation on the Bulgarian version of goal.com, then you might have managed to prise as much money out of us as was offered by City. Ultimately the whole 'tapping up' thing made very little difference other than as a PR tactic - the main factor was that he was contracted to you so the deal would always be on your terms.
Your link is to an article written before the events which YV has described took place, Swarbs. It also doesn't say that there was no evidence, only that there wasn't a legally watertight case. Given that there was one in the Stam transfer and nothing was done anyway, it's a bit of a moot point.
Alleged events PNP. Nothing was ever proven - if it was then you can guarantee Levy would have pushed Utd much harder than he did. In the end all he got out of us was a 10% increase in the bid from £28m to £30.75m - hardly a massive achievement given that the size of the bid City made was always going to drive the price up. Particularly since Spurs claimed they'd been assembling a 'dossier' of evidence since early July. Ultimately there is always some form of evidence of some form of tapping up, usually agents in back channels leaking dodgy stories or invented quotes to the media as happened in the Berbatov case. Most of the clubs are happy to benefit from it when it goes in their favour, or even encourage it, tho' most of them are clever enough not to have pictures of them taken whilst tapping up another club's manager...
well same as happened to Jimmy Carr isn't? but at the end he did the right thing in france, Gérard Depardieu given Russian citizenship by mafia man Putin to avoid paying 75% in taxes it is all a question of morality at the end what accountants are doing is basically stealing .. just bcz they do it , it doesn't mean is ok
Given our history with such things, I'm not sure you're right. We had Chelsea absolutely bang to rights with Arnesen and were basically told to sort it out between us, despite their history of tapping up. If having photos of their owner and Arnesen together on the Russian's yacht isn't enough to make them act, then what would be?
To be fair to watford_R, getting worse is the "common" version of becoming worse. We are getting very pedantic here...like SAF would say (although I am not sure he means to use that word in his description of the pace of the game ..)
hhh still better than many footballers (including english ones) you pay thousands a year just to watch..
Photos don't always prove tapping up tho - there were photos of Ramos checking into the same hotel as your entire board of directors and you still didn't get any punishment. Besides which, hadn't Arnesen already been suspended for telling Spurs he wanted to move to Chelsea at the point he appeared on the yacht, and you'd already set a fee of £8 million for the move? Not all that suspicious if everyone's already well aware of what's happening! Ultimately you can't control who people socialise with, and the onus will still be to prove they were up to no good or that their club wasn't aware of their desire to move.
Thankfully we don't pay to watch them recite poetry so their English isn't really an issue! I think Fergie will be more pissed off that he shelled out for Buttner as much as anything. Double whamy of no fee for the player and having to buy a replacement.
I don't know where you got your info on the Arnesen tapping up from but it's wrong. Chelsea enquired about Arnesen and we told them they could not contact him and that we weren't interested in letting him go. A few days later Arnesen handed his resignation letter and told Levy that he was going to Chelsea at which point his resignation was rejected and he was suspended. After that Levy had no choice but to open negotiations with Chelsea over compenation, Arnesen couldn't speak to Chelsea as he was suspended and Chelsea had no permission to speak to him, that's when the pictures surfaced. As Levy said at the time it was clearcut tapping up and that's why Chelsea lost a lot of money over it. No one's denied that we've ever done anything wrong in transfers, the point was that Fergie once again opened his trap and spouted ****. Complaining about a transfer where we clearly haven't broken any rules and when United himself have a history of dodgy dealings is hypocritical and even worse since he recently said that Pardew shouldn't comment on his bullying of referees as Pardew has done worse. I and most Spurs fans are happy to have put his nose out of joint after the Berbatov dealings(as explained), that's all there is to it.
I agree it was almost certainly tapping up, but my point was that you couldn't prove it. For all we know Arnesen was on Abra's yacht for a holiday, or to discuss gas prices, or snort some cocaine. The money paid was simply Abramovich being much more willing to throw some money at the problem rather than take the risk of any sort of punishment. Same reason Spurs paid Sevilla the compensation they demanded over Ramos, rather than take a gamble on a tribunal or Sevilla reporting them and possibly getting a punishment. It always happens - clubs make dodgy approaches but nothing can be proven, so the clubs end up agreeing a fee / compensation to reduce the risk of being punished or losing out if they can't prove their case. Even when it can be proved, such as in the Kakuta case, there is almost always enough doubt for the guilty club to wheedle their way out of it with some good lawyers. And as I've said before, every manager does the same. Levy bleated like mad for a good few months about Berbatov and Keane, less than a year after he'd been much more blatant and brazen with Ramos. And Pardew claimed SAF should be banned for having a conversation with the ref in the same match that he railed at the fourth official until he got the decision he wanted. Hypocrisy is the stock in trade of pretty much every half decent manager or chairman managing in a top division. The only reason SAF gets so much press on it is he's been at the top for that much longer, and all his comments and actions get that much more focus. What do you think the media reaction would have been had the roles been reversed and SAF had been the one in the fourth official's ear until the ref changed his mind and gave Utd a goal, and then claimed Pardew deserved a ban?
A very clever move by Daniel Levy, he made bacon face look very foolish. The outburst from the old codger was priceless.
