Comments on: Did Sheffield United violate Rule U18?

By: Carlitos

Carlitos — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:07:26 +0000

Foxy?

Shef utd were in breach of PL rules.

‘Even if this was the case, I don’t see them punishing Kia?’

How can Kia be punished, he’s not accountable to the Premier League, he’s not a Premier League club!!

I fully expect a Â£5.5 million fine.

Don’t worry, we’ll give you some help.

Jagielka 500k?

By: dave

dave — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:31:55 +0000

The actual rule is in place to prevent mass effect on another clubs line-ups in sport. The repercussions on match fixing and betting are huge.

Transfer rules dictate a club holding a players registration cannot be influenced by a 3rd party (1st party Player, 2nd Party Club, 3rd Party by rule another club, not normally a company).

The Ruling against West Ham Utd was actually after the game took place, a full 6 days. This means that Watford and Sheffield Utd had no idea about Rule U18 till a week after the game.

West Ham can argue that this would demonstrate most clubs were unaware of the rule’s importance and thus, both Sheffield Utd and Watford have not given all documentation to the FAPL, as they thought it wasn’t needed.

The timeline is important as Clubs had no idea of the rule normally as we all didn’t until the West Ham tribunal. Hence McCabe stating he felt fairly sure they had given all the info to the FAPL. Not totally sure. Watford aren’t part of the FAPL so can’t be affected by revealing all the info by the way!!

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:30:43 +0000

Hi all, also when a player signs for a new club, and his new club face his old club a week later then i suppose it’s ok to have a gentlemans agreement, but kabba was not due to face his former club for another 3/4 months! Thats interference. sheff utd are guilty and should be docked 3 points or take a 5million fine. your choice !

By: debaser_74

debaser_74 — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:16:37 +0000

Interesting that people think that because its always been done this way then its within the rules. Strange then that all of West Hams january signings played against their former clubs. LBM against fulham, Neill against Blackburn, davenport against spurs… it would seem that, whilst many clubs bend these rules, not all do.

By: dt

dt — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:52:53 +0000

I believe this offence is much worse than the administration eror West Ham have been punished for.

Sheffield United have written a clause into Kabba’s contract preventing him from playing against them. He played 14 out of the 15 remaining games, including against West Ham. They have deliberately breached the rules.

Campaign for Fairness??? Hypocrites of the highest order.

By: Sajid Akhtar

Sajid Akhtar — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:55:51 +0000

Just a reminder its usually the norm for a player who has recently signed to not face his former club.
Young for Villa v Watford, Rooney for Man Utd v Everton (although this was pre signing), Andy Cole for Man Utd v Newcastle etc etc

By: Foxy

Foxy — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:40:09 +0000

U18 =

â€œNo club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches or in any (other) competitions.â€

We aren’t a party to a contract, the only parties are Steven Kabba and Watford. Unless we had a seperate contractual agreement with Watford, stating he couldn’t play.

Even if this was the case, I don’t see them punishing Kia?

By: Peter Phirrippis

Peter Phirrippis — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:24:52 +0000

If Rule U18 says you cannot put a clause into an agreement to say a player cannot player against the selling club during the rest of that season then Sheffield United are at fault putting it in not Watford for signing it!

By: Gary Killington

Gary Killington — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:35:40 +0000

Ahmed,

It is nice to see that your website is now trying to report based on facts rather than supposition, idle gossip and personal agendas. Many other websites continue to attack West Ham and wouldn’t want to be seen on the other side of the fence just yet…until next Wednesday I expect!!

It seems that something is awry with such agreements as this. I think it’s to do with the ambiguity of rule U18, which was acknowledged at the Premier League AGM. By admitting that the rule is ambiguous (as agreed by 18 Premier League clubs), it more or less makes the West Ham “rule break” a matter of interpretation rather than definitive breaking of the rule.

On that basis, Sheffield United, Watford, Man U and all the other clubs who have entered into such an agreement, verbal or otherwise, could also be seen as breaking the rule – if that is the chosen interpretation.

If anything, as a West Ham supporter, having read weeks and weeks of bullsh*t published about my club, this article is at least quite funny.

By: Ahmed Bilal

Ahmed Bilal — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:40:37 +0000

dodgeyblade – fergie and david moyes had a verbal agreement, not a contractual one.

bob – it says on both sites that it’s a contractual agreement

Norton – please note that West were charged on two accounts – not acting in good faith towards other clubs (B13) and potentially enabling a third party to have control over their team / club affairs (rule U18).

So my question is – is this agreement similar to the West Ham agreement? If yes, we have a problem