Comments on: Sheffield Utd has 24hrs

By: S66BLADE

S66BLADE — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:27:46 +0000

Ah. It all went quiet over there.Presumably when presented with an article on an internationally trusted news website you choose to ignore this. If you don’t read it, it doesn’t exist!!

By: S66BLADE

S66BLADE — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:52:09 +0000

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL1758254420070617the PL DID look into it.Joe J - hope you are wrong about the “years to come” !!

By: muddy

muddy — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:50:53 +0000

3rd party ownership is not against the rules, however contracts allowing for influence by a 3rd party is against the rules. Just because it was a gentlemens agreement doesn’t make it OK, although the claim it was only a gentlemens agreement conflicts with what was written at the time on both the Sheffield United and Watford websites and quoted by Warnock in the Sheffield Star.Needs more investigation in my opinion.

By: Joe J

Joe J — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:20:23 +0000

S66BLADE: why are you still in the CCC? its obvious that you are at where you were destined to go and that is the CCC, 06/07 was your own fate and it wasnt Tevez that put you there, it was the incompetence of warnock and the players, and thats why you will be there for the years to come

By: Steve Kabba

Steve Kabba — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:09:38 +0000

S66 Blade, It still breaks the same rule over 3rd party influencing a team. Sheffield united told Watford they can not play one of there players against them.