FA to investigate Sheffield United over Kabba Clause?
West Ham agreeably broke the rules of football and paid a massive sum of £5.2m a record fine for any club, and are still suffering to this day.
The FA should now hold inquiries into every club in all leagues regarding transfers and rules that have been broken, and especially rule U18.
Sheffield Utd without doubt broke this rule and influenced the outcome of the game between Watford and Sheffield Utd a clause was inserted into the transfer contract that Steve Kabba could not play for Watford in the game against Sheffield Utd.
The U18 rules says: “No 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.”
So rule U18 was breached under this contract, McCabe has stated recently that Kabba not playing for Watford in that game was only a gentlemen’s agreement.
Both clubs Websites Sheffield Utd and Watford at the time had stated that Kabba was not playing in that game and the page has since been removed from Sheffield’s Website it did state:
Meanwhile, in the Watford camp, striker Steven Kabba is ineligible to play in this weekend’s fixture due to a clause in his £500,000 move from Bramall Lane in January.
Sheffield United went on to win the game 1-0 and in the view of the FA Kabba not being involved in the game was a direct influence on the win.
Rule U18 was breached and investigations should commence by the FA into not only Sheffield Utd but also every club that made an agreement and clause that influences the outcome of a game by not fielding an important player after a transfer.
This post was submitted by Mike DiAntoni.
Random Related Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
October 11th, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Absolutely agree with you there Mike, if West Ham were fined then so should every club that broke this rule.
October 11th, 2008 at 4:59 PM
That would then make Watford guilty of the offence West Ham have been proven guilty for by playing a player who is “owned” by a third party not Sheffield United.This would surely be easy to prove/disprove by simply showing the FA copies of the contract which i’m sure would have been ratified at the time by the premier league, unless indeed we are saying it is them that are too slack to notice their own rules are being broken before their eyes.I have said in a previous note on this page that I think the two clubs and its fans should stop fighting against each other and go after the PL as it is them have caused it all to get this far in the first place!!PS: I still find it amusing that this “EXCLUSIVE” story about Kabba(who couldnt influence a pub game) was broken on the day the first arbritration started by Martin Samuals then from the News of the World, who just so happens to be a West Ham fan. Maybe thats just me being scinical?
October 11th, 2008 at 8:26 PM
why should west ham get fined anyway if anything terence brown should get fined cause he knew they were illegal transfers and signed them anyway and also knew he was going to sell the club after to me it looks like he signed them to try and get us relegated on purpose
October 11th, 2008 at 8:31 PM
hardly the same thing, its become accepted practice that a lot of clubs either insert this not to play against clause or ‘gentlemans’ agreement in loan deals, but everyone seems to have lost sight of what it is sheffield united are claiming against, the claim isnt against the games upto the £5.5m fine, its only against the games after where west ham were supposed to have ended the 3rd party agreement but its being argued they didnt, who knows?but has anything ever happened about Mascherano??? wasnt that on the same terms at both West Ham and Liverpool?
October 12th, 2008 at 8:14 AM
I believe copies of the agreement have already been viewed by the FA who confirmed at the time that no such clause existed.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I don’t think there was anything in Kabba’s playing contract which said he couldn’t play against Sheffield United, the matter was covered by a separate ‘private agreement’. This is exactly the same as with Tevez at West Ham, there was no ‘third party influence’ clause in his playing contract, it was in a separate private agreement.The only difference is that the Tevez clause was in writing (at the insistence of MSI), and the Kabba clause wasn’t, meaning that Sheffiedl could (and did) argue that it was a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between managers and not an agreement between the clubs, there being no proof to the contrary.
We don’t know what the members of the West Ham-Sheffield United independent FA tribunal would have made of that, however. They held that in spite of West Ham having formally rescinded the ‘private agreement’ in writing, and in spite of acting consistently with its having been rescinded, to the extent that MSI initiated legal action against them as a consequence, verbal remarks made by one club representative to MSI’s lawyer (which came to light as a consequence of said litigation), should be deemed to be indicative of a valid contract in contravention of PL rules.
So one would expect them to interpret a situation where a ‘deal’ was evidenced in web publications from both clubs, and acted upon by Watford, to be evidence of a contract in contravention of PL rules, i.e. 18 by Watford, and another different one by Sheffield United.No doubt, if they did, they would be just as certain what the PL would have done about it and the consequences, if any, on Sheffield United’s pointa total, as they were over the Tevez affair.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:02 PM
interesting….The U18 rules says: “No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to… etc You will recall that when Boa Morte was transferred from Fulham to WHU, Fulham were livid when WHU played him in the game between the two clubs. According to Fulham, there was an agreement (probably not documented in a contract) that the player would not play. So, by the argument above, WHU and Fulham broke rule U18 - the offence is to ‘enter into a contract’ - the fact that WHU went back on their promise really doesn’t matter.I suggest not push too hard at this door….
October 12th, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Whether in writing or not, there was clearly an agreement between Watford and Sheffield Utd that Kabba would not play, that is 3rd party influence that ould have affected the result. Had Kabba played the match may have been drawn in which case Sheffield Utd would have finished with 2 fewer points and this would have relegated them even if 3 point were deducted from West Ham following the ruling against Tevez.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Muddy,I am sure everyone on this site would agree that there was clearly an agreement between Fulham and WHU that Boa Morte would not play. It looks like there was also a similar agreement over Kabba. I am not sure what your point is. Unless we all want WHU to be investigated again, along with Watford, the Blades, Man U, Everton (re Howard)?It is not going to happpen and it would be best to move on.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Its a common gentlemens agreement thats put into nearly all loan deals…the only reason this one has been made a fuss of is because of the hammers desperately trying to make something out of nothing. Move on and give the blades their money
October 12th, 2008 at 5:18 PM
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.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:32 PM
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.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:08 PM
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.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:35 PM
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.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:52 PM
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.