• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Zeki Fryers

braineclipse said:
I think he would, actually I would have thought he's done the exact same thing before making the Fryers deal. To figure out if we were breaking any rules or not. That's part of what lawyers do. If Manu want to talk to same lawyers to see if we have broken any rules then they have every right to of course, I'd expect them to.

Actually, if they did do that I would have expected Manu and Ferguson to shut up about the case until they had figured out if they had a legal leg to stand on. I would think that there's a very decent chance they've already done that, know they have no legal approach to this case so instead they go running to the press.

But to go to the press like a whinging little bitch, that's quite different than checking your options and checking if any regulations have been trespassed upon. To talk about "fair", in what is a very competitive transfer market where clubs always try to get one over other clubs sounds disingenuous. Was it "fair" when they nicked Pique from Barcelona? Of course not, yet they did it. Why? Because he was a good, talented young player and they weren't breaking any rules. To do that themselves then go moaning to the press about the Fryers thing is hypocritical.

Of course Ferguson probably knows it's hypocritical, but he also knows that he won't be pushed about that because if some journalist tries to do that he'll just block them and their media outlet from his press conferences. With the financial implications that has for the journalist and media outlet the knows they will bob their little heads and ask the questions he wants them to ask.

And yes I would be tinkled off if it was the other way around, I probably would moan and whinge about it on here. There's a difference between "some dude on a forum" and "the guy running a football club" and there's an even bigger difference between what I say as a fan and what someone who is running a club says publicly.
Click to expand...

No. Man Utd taking Pique from Barcelona was within the rules. If we have agreed to take a player from Man Utd by telling him to go abroad for 6 months and then come back - that probably is against the rules. Seems quite simple and obvious that the manager of any club would complain about it, just as we would.

I personally find it quite funny at the moment, but as "the guy running a football club" he is the only person that can really raise awareness and complain about this, and he has a duty to Man Utd to do so considering it has cost his club millions.

As for us, its just down to how well we have covered our tracks. If we get away with it, BRILLIANT. One way or another though I cant imagine screwing over the most powerful football club in the world was a great idea.
 
Golfball said:
No. Man Utd taking Pique from Barcelona was within the rules. If we have agreed to take a player from Man Utd by telling him to go abroad for 6 months and then come back - that probably is against the rules. Seems quite simple and obvious that the manager of any club would complain about it, just as we would.

I personally find it quite funny at the moment, but as "the guy running a football club" he is the only person that can really raise awareness and complain about this, and he has a duty to Man Utd to do so considering it has cost his club millions.
Ty
As for us, its just down to how well we have covered our tracks. If we get away with it, BRILLIANT. One way or another though I cant imagine screwing over the most powerful football club in the world was a great idea.
Click to expand...

standard liege have come out today and confirmed the homesick story so as far as we are concerned nothing otherwise can be proved. I just can't see Levy being involved in a dodgy deal which could be so easily unraveled he is too sh
Byewd for that.

As for tinkling off the biggest club in the world I think you are overplaying your hand. It's must be about the history between Levy and Ferguson because the money involved is peanuts. So can't see this making much difference. Arsenal "tinkled" off Barcelona when they signed the young Cesc. Didn't stop them selling them half their team. That's life especially in the murky world of football transfers.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/25/manchester-united-tax-glazer-brothers

Pot, kettle, black. Man U knows full well how to work the law to their advantage.
This summer the club floated on the New York Stock Exchange and registered itself in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven, in a move that will reduce its "indebtedness", according to the parent company's Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
It is predicting a record turnover for 2012 of between £350m and £360m, with the company recently boasting of its best "commercial year" yet.
The club says the float in New York will see it pay more tax than before, as profits will be liable to corporation tax in the US. However, the club's prospectus for the float confirms it has sought assurances from the Cayman Islands' authorities that profits directed there will not be taxed in the future.
The prospectus says that the company received an undertaking to the effect that, for 20 years, "no law that thereafter is enacted in the Cayman Islands imposing any tax or duty to be levied on profits, income or on gains or appreciation … will apply to any property comprised in or any income arising under the company, or to the shareholders thereof, in respect of any such property or income".
Click to expand...
 
Golfball said:
No. Man Utd taking Pique from Barcelona was within the rules. If we have agreed to take a player from Man Utd by telling him to go abroad for 6 months and then come back - that probably is against the rules. Seems quite simple and obvious that the manager of any club would complain about it, just as we would.

I personally find it quite funny at the moment, but as "the guy running a football club" he is the only person that can really raise awareness and complain about this, and he has a duty to Man Utd to do so considering it has cost his club millions.

As for us, its just down to how well we have covered our tracks. If we get away with it, BRILLIANT. One way or another though I cant imagine screwing over the most powerful football club in the world was a great idea.
Click to expand...

What we did was within the rules. There's a gaping loophole there.

What we did might be against the spirit of the rules. But the same could be said for much of Utd's transfer activity.
 
metalgear said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/25/manchester-united-tax-glazer-brothers

Pot, kettle, black. Man U knows full well how to work the law to their advantage.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that's more a ruse to benefit the Glazers than the club. They depend upon Utd making massive profits so that they can cream off a good £60 million annually in dividend payments in order to be able to pay off their interest charges.

But making massive profits is a double edged sword. It also means having to pay a massive tax bill. What better way to protect their cash cow than to register it in a tax haven?
 
BrainOfLevy said:
If Rose has improved to the extent that he really is becoming a really good left back, then I think we could try him as first choice. He may be more suited to what AVB will ultimately be aiming for, with full backs providing width as opposed to Benny whose strength is more releasing Bale. Rose is performing well in a Premiership team and I don't think it's easy for a young full back to stand out as much as he has been doing - he must be playing really well for that to be so.
Click to expand...
#

how can you be sure BAE cant provide width if those were his instructions?
 
glorygloryeze said:
I love the fact we seemed to stuck two-fingers to Fergie on this (though I worry about he implications for our game against them in two weeks but anyway....)

Can someone detail exactly what Fergie may have done to Levy for Levy to seemingly take 'revenge' like this? I'm assuming it's more than just the Berbative and Carrick situations, as we got top dollar for both...
Click to expand...

Didn't Levy write one of his letters accusing United and Liverpool of tapping up Berbatov and Keane? Then we accused United of unethical behaviour in intercepting Berbatov at the airport when he had permission to talk to City. Fergie made comments about Levy back then ("he's a bit different"?).

If Fergie is still upset, Levy must have done something right. He tends to be most upset when the story is true (the nepotism with his son as agent, using United youth players to help a manager son and then cancelling the loans in revenge to his sacking).
 
Golfball said:
No. Man Utd taking Pique from Barcelona was within the rules. If we have agreed to take a player from Man Utd by telling him to go abroad for 6 months and then come back - that probably is against the rules. Seems quite simple and obvious that the manager of any club would complain about it, just as we would.

I personally find it quite funny at the moment, but as "the guy running a football club" he is the only person that can really raise awareness and complain about this, and he has a duty to Man Utd to do so considering it has cost his club millions.

As for us, its just down to how well we have covered our tracks. If we get away with it, BRILLIANT. One way or another though I cant imagine screwing over the most powerful football club in the world was a great idea.
Click to expand...

How do you know that what we did is against the rules?

When was the last time Levy broke the rules of the game (and got caught)? There's a reason why there are some decent lawyers getting some solid money from Spurs.

Raise awareness? If that's what he did that would be fine. If he was saying "the rules must be changed, we can't have that kind of a loophole there to be exploited" that would be fine. That's not really what he did though, to me at least.
 
jts1882 said:
Didn't Levy write one of his letters accusing United and Liverpool of tapping up Berbatov and Keane? Then we accused United of unethical behaviour in intercepting Berbatov at the airport when he had permission to talk to City. Fergie made comments about Levy back then ("he's a bit different"?).

If Fergie is still upset, Levy must have done something right. He tends to be most upset when the story is true (the nepotism with his son as agent, using United youth players to help a manager son and then cancelling the loans in revenge to his sacking).
Click to expand...

I agree. Being a chairman in the Premier League shouldn't be about getting Alex Ferguson to like you.
 
braineclipse said:
How do you know that what we did is against the rules?
Click to expand...

I think we can safely say that what we did was against the spirit of the rules, which is to compensate the clubs that develop players.

Now it is possible that we were interested in the player but decided he was too expensive, given the likely compensation, and ended our interest. So the player opts to move abroad because he thinks he can best further his career in Belgium, a country where clubs often make agreements to park players. The player genuinely gets home sick. We hear about it and decide to renew interest and offer him a convenient escape. All this is possible.

But would you put money on the claim we had no prior knowledge that this scenario would play out?
 
jts1882 said:
I think we can safely say that what we did was against the spirit of the rules, which is to compensate the clubs that develop players.

Now it is possible that we were interested in the player but decided he was too expensive, given the likely compensation, and ended our interest. So the player opts to move abroad because he thinks he can best further his career in Belgium, a country where clubs often make agreements to park players. The player genuinely gets home sick. We hear about it and decide to renew interest and offer him a convenient escape. All this is possible.

But would you put money on the claim we had no prior knowledge that this scenario would play out?
Click to expand...

Nothing in this post answers my question.

Is there any reason to believe that what we did was against the rules?

I haven't seen a claim from us that we had no prior knowledge and no I wouldn't put money on it. That's not the point. Either we broke the rules, or we didn't.
 
I don't think it's even necessarily against the spirit of the rules, considering United wanted to charge 6 million for an unproven out of contract youngster. They were taking the tinkle in the first place. Before this season I would have been amazed if we got anywhere near 6 million for Rose.
 
braineclipse said:
Either we broke the rules, or we didn't.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Jts, I know what you mean about the "spirit" of the rules, but that's a complete irrelevance when you talk about Manchester United, who have no morals in the transfer market. At worst, we played this with a ruthless business edge but it won't stop United doing a deal with us in the future, if the deal suits them.

Fact is, we tried to buy Fryers in the summer and United wouldn't do business.
We've since bought him from the team that holds his registration. Simple as really, and even if that was agreed at the time they bought him from United I cannot see what is wrong with that. Even morally. If anything it goes to show how ridiculous it is to try and have a system based on both UK and European rules and regulations.

If it really is a problem then the Premier League can make up a rule that prohibits this sort of thing, but right now such rules are in place so Fergie will have to make do with his 5%. Enjoy!
 
The spirit of the rules isn't the rules. If the situation was reversed i have no doubt that United would have done exactly the same as we had. In fact all the 'big' clubs would.


We played within the rules and we got what we wanted. That's pretty much the end of that.
 
Worth remembering that the intention of those rules (aka spirit I guess!) is to protect the little clubs not the big dogs
 
Eat your heart out SAF...

A1555.jpg
 
What's all the fuss about Fryers? Fergie is fuming over his cut-price move to Spurs, so Sportsmail went on a scouting mission...

It is a £6million question Sir Alex Ferguson thought worth airing in public. Did Tottenham Hotspur manage to purchase Zeki Fryers from Manchester United on the cheap by engineering a move to a middle club?

The 20-year-old left back found himself in the spotlight after the Old Trafford manager called on the Premier League to investigate his move to Spurs this month, which he believes deprived United of half their valuation.

Spurs claimed Fryers simply became homesick after failing out of favour with a new manager at Standard Liege, who he joined last summer.

Today, Fryers made his competitive debut for the development squad so it seemed a good opportunity to visit the Spurs training ground in Enfield and see what all the fuss was about.

Teddy Sheringham was in the crowd too, perhaps thinking the same thing. As a player who once went from Spurs to United and back again he would understand Fryers’ decision more than most.

He played the full 90 minutes of Spurs’ 5-1 win over Wolves in the Elite Section of the Under 21 Premier League and managed to keep opposing winger Robbie Parry relatively quiet without doing anything spectacular.

Despite being known for his pace and attacking mindset he appeared more cautious, preferring to bomb forward on only a handful of occasions.

On 37 minutes he sent over a dangerous cross but failed to find a team-mate, while a dribble near the box a few minutes later came to naught.

Team boss Tim Sherwood could be heard screaming at Fryers to get back in position after allowing Parry too much space at one point but overall it was a sound defensive display.

Fryers lined up behind Andros Townsend on the left channel and the two appeared to have a good understanding. Their best moment came in the 68th minute when a neat interchange freed winger Townsend near the byline but his cross was cut out.

The thumping win for the hosts owed more to the explosive talents of Townsend, and central midfielder Tom Carroll, than Fryers.

His was a solid performance – if not one showing why he has caused so much drama.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2262335/Zeki-Fryers-Tottenham-scouting-report-Manchester-United-controversy.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back