Comments on: FA to investigate Sheffield United over Kabba Clause?

By: spandav

spandav — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:52:06 +0000

Whether it’s written into a contract or verbal, (gentlemens agreement) it’s still an agreement and breaks the rules. In fact a verbal agreement on the nod is definitely seedy, as it immediately suggests that someone is trying to sidestep the status quo and should not be tolerated any form. The PL sets the rules and should enforce them. If any other party has an influence over which players a club can field then the whole game is effected. The fans and who ever else pays to watch or broadcast matches are being cheated, as they are deprived of seeing the best players in action. Where has decency gone - they are cheating. If these clubs want to be in the PL, with all the money, honour the rules or be thrown out. Maybe that will concentrate the minds. If this continues football itself together wil all fans will eventually be the loosers.

By: Evidence Blade

Evidence Blade — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:35:51 +0000

What a lot of untruths your article contains Mike. There was no clause in his contract. Rule U18 wasn’t broken. McCabe has never said there was a gentleman’s agreement. The FA have never said that Kabba not playing influenced the result.Watford Football Club Spokesman:- “We have yet to receive any notification or requests from the Premier League regarding the transfer of Steve Kabba to Watford Football Club from Sheffield United. We can confirm that there was no written clause in any documentation relating to Steve Kabba that stipulated he could not play against Sheffield United…All contracts are vetted and approved by the Premier League prior to the player’s registration”
Also, Steve Kabba was named as a substitute by Watford in the three matches before they played Sheffield United. The week before our match, he came on against Man City in the 31st minute before limping off injured in the 65th minute. He was therefore injured by the time of the Sheffield United match and didn’t feature again for the rest of the season. These FACTS are easily verified on Soccerbase or the Watford FC website.

By: BAC

BAC — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:08:18 +0000

West Ham denied the existence of an agreement with Fulham that Boa Morte should not play against them following his transfer (not loan), and certainly did not act on the alleged agreement. So, there’s no evidence admitting an agreement, and no performance in line with an agreement, so the chances of a PL inquiry ‘convicting’ them of agreeing a contract contravening rule 18 would seem minimal.That isn’t the same as with Kabba, when both clubs’ websites referred to an agreement that he should not play, and he actually did not play. The evidence there seems pretty incontrovertible that there was an agreement. Presumably, the agreement wouldn’t have been required by Sheffield United unless they thought they would benefit from it, and if insisting that a player should be deemed ineligible for certain games isn’t “third pary influence”, it’s hard to imagine what is.There is an old maxim to the effect that he who seeks equity should have clean hands, and in seeking redress against West Ham for allegedly breaching PL rules, West Ham may well try to argue that Sheffield have opened the door for their own conduct to be examined.It will be interesting to see what the CAS makes of all this.

By: muddy

muddy — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:32:45 +0000

If there was a similar agreement between WHU and Fulham, then Fulham should sue WHU for breach of agreement. I’m sure such “gentlemen’s agreements” are rife in football. However wouldn’t WHU have been stupid to honour such an agreement in the light of the PL fine for a similar offence? Just as well they didn’t honour it eh?Martin Smauel may have been the first to publish an article about the Kabba issue, but it was being talked about before he did.So what if every club is investigated, surely if we’re going to punish one club we should punish all. Or is the campaign for fairness only in motion to right the wrongs against the Blades, who most will agree were relegated because of their own performances and Warnock’s poor decisions (such as the decision to field a weakened team against ManU feeling there was no way he Blades could win). What a ridiculous decision, a point from that game could have kept them up! But they thought they were safe at that point, having just beaten WHU 3-0.Sheffield Utd were masters of their own destiny and threw it away, but cannot accept it. McCabe is clearly only in this for money and having shareholders to appease sees this as a worthwhile cause. If it was just about fairness he would have no problem going to CAS.

By: woodseats blade

woodseats blade — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:18:43 +0000

Nick, as I said earlier, the only reason the Kabba deal has had any kind of publicity is because it was broken as an “EXCLUSIVE” by Martin Samuals as a desperate and embarrasing attempt on his part to try and influence the first abitration. Incidentally the result of the first arbritration DID rule in Sheff Utd’s favour by ruling the Premier League got it wrong in the first place by only fining West Ham and not deducting points as they should have done. Not as misconcieved (or conveniently forgoton) by most West Ham fans and a lot of press.