Zatman Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 has been playing left back a lot as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I don't think that's quite right either though. At the time there was no rules about 3rd party ownership on players. There is now, but west ham's offence was not disclosing that they were 3rd party owned, not the fact that they were played. I think... Happy to be corrected in fairly sure there gave always been rules against third party ownership in the premier league, i remember the Juan Pablo angel deal nearly fell through because he wasn't owned by river plate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 10, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) I don't think that's quite right either though. At the time there was no rules about 3rd party ownership on players. There is now, but west ham's offence was not disclosing that they were 3rd party owned, not the fact that they were played. I think... Happy to be corrected in fairly sure there gave always been rules against third party ownership in the premier league, i remember the Juan Pablo angel deal nearly fell through because he wasn't owned by river plate It was complicated, having googled it. 3rd Party Ownership wasn't against the Premier League Rules. But it's rules stated that "third parties were not permitted to "materially influence" a club's "policies or the performances of its teams"" But Tevez had a clause in his contract that said West Ham couldn't veto any transfers or influence how much they were for. That of course does not mean that every third party arrangement has the same clauses. If no such clause existed in the Tevez issue, there may not have been a problem. A common misconception was that any third party agreement would have been in breach of the Premier League rules. In fact it was the clause giving the owners of Tevez influence over West Ham's transfer policy (plus the non disclosure of the agreement itself) which incurred the Premier League's wrath. It was for this reason that West Ham were judged to have breached the old Premier League rule Rule U18 and fined £5.5 million by the Premier League. Link So West Ham were fined for irregularities in Tevez' contract, i.e. concealing the fact that this 3rd Party had influence over the player and the club. It was not the fielding of an illegible player.This is an article from when the Premier League outlawed all 3rd Party Owned players. After "Tevez-gate" Obviously the argument is that if West Ham HAD disclosed that a 3rd party had influence over them, then Tevez wouldn't have signed so wouldn't have played for West Ham etc etc But that's sort of a different argument. The actual rule they broke was different. If they had signed Tevez without that one clause then it would have been fine. Were a player to now be signed and have 3rd party ownership then the sanctions would be way harsher, because the rules have changed (see Faurlin at QPR. The FA adopted a similar policy to the Premier League in 2009) Edited April 10, 2014 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Colback has signed for Newcastle and they are not happy at all. their statement is nearly as bitter as to how they reacted when we took Bent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) How atrocious are they. I feel sort of sorry for Poyet because players like O'Shea, Brown,Larsson. Cattermole etc have been awful for 4 managers now since Bruce was there. Surely the fans need to realise the players are entirely at fault for how crap they are Edited March 14, 2015 by Zatman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted March 14, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2015 They've just got no pace in their team. Seem to have very little quality going forward too. They don't seem to have a player who can create something out of nothing apart from Johnson on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Gus will surely go after today, but hopefully Sunderland won't get their 'new-manager bounce' to keep them safe. Poyet In! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 have had Di Canio. Bruce, O'Neill and Poyet in last 4 years. I dont think any more managers out there that could come in and give them a boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I always think with Sunderland those two terrible prem seasons they had in 2003 and 2006 when they went down both times with firstly 22 points and then 16 points or something ridiculous totally killed them off as a prem force as I remember them finishing top 7 when Phillips was banging them in. Since then there's been a losing culture at the club that unendless managers and untold millions spent on admitedly mediocre players just can't shake off. Big problem if they go down imo.....look at the amount of players they have 30 +....O'Shea, Brown, Revillere. Don't think Defoe on a 2 and a half year deal was the wisest decision either, him coming in and them having to go 4-4-2 as a result makes them easier to score against as they were at least keeping clean sheets 1st half of the season. Like us they've been very fortunate to stay up the last few seasons. Eventually it gets you and on today's evidence it looks like this time it will get Sunderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 They absolutely hate us on RTG but we are more alike than they think, both have American owners who invested heavily at the start, now neither owner are to be seen, both have lurched from one managerial disaster to another, both have been involved in relegation battles for years It all started to go downhill for them when we had bent off em, at the time they were in the top 10 with bent, gyan and welbeck up front Now they have Danny graham. And I said when they signed him, but a 70k a week deal for a 32 year old Defoe was madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 They had special offers and attracted over 45,000 to witness that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It really confused me as to why Poyet kept Larsson on for the 2nd half. He wasn't even on the pitch for kickoff. Surely you should just make a sub at that point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 They absolutely hate us on RTG but we are more alike than they think, both have American owners who invested heavily at the start, now neither owner are to be seen, both have lurched from one managerial disaster to another, both have been involved in relegation battles for years It all started to go downhill for them when we had bent off em, at the time they were in the top 10 with bent, gyan and welbeck up front Now they have Danny graham. And I said when they signed him, but a 70k a week deal for a 32 year old Defoe was madness. Yes they absolutely hate us. I believe it started when they signed O'Neill and they were mocking us for pinching our manager. I then, politely informed them he was a dinosaur and to be careful about giving him money to spend. They then impolitely said we were all **** jealous, they were going to win the league, Villa were finished and **** off. O'Neill then dished out his 'retirement package' contracts to AJ, Fletcher, Cuellar, Graham and Saha. All on north of £35k a week by all accounts. We then mocked, and they didn't like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It really confused me as to why Poyet kept Larsson on for the 2nd half. He wasn't even on the pitch for kickoff. Surely you should just make a sub at that point? He said he was having his leg stitched up and they couldn't get it finished in time for the second half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Sunderland's hate for us started when we signed Bent and got N'Zogbia, despite RTG being certain that he'd sign for them because of Bruce and what their 'ITKs' had been saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 We very nearly scored when he was off the pitch. Twice. If it had gone to 5-0 when they were playing with a self imposed ten men then it wouldn't have surprised me if the chairman had sacked Poyet on the spot and given Mauricio Taricco the job for the last 35 minutes or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Sunderland's hate for us started when we signed Bent and got N'Zogbia, despite RTG being certain that he'd sign for them because of Bruce and what their 'ITKs' had been saying. That didn't help but seems to have gone up ten fold since then. That RTG is a scary, lawless state, reminisicent of the wastelands of Mad Max. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) It does seem like a throwback to a different age on there sometimes. I remeber the whole 'party with Marty' thing as well. I suppose there's a series of things that have happened and I don't suppose today will have helped either. Edited March 14, 2015 by useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Their hatred for us is one of those strange things you'd struggle to explain to anyone else I thought it came from their belief that they're a huge football club, there's more than a few on that RTG site that swear blind we're a nothing club because we have lower attendances (must be a north east thing) and I thought bent had motioned we were a much bigger team, which they didn't like, which we of course revelled in, which they also didn't like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 They are a huge club. They have spent most of their history in the top flight, they have more league titles than Chelsea or Manchester City and they get massive gates but the local media is based in Newcastle so they are often perceived as being in the shadow of their less illustrious neighbours. They are entitled to much better than they are getting at the moment. The rivalry thing is weird. Aston Villa vs Sunderland was the first big rivalry in English football, we were locked in title battles with each other for almost twenty years a decade either side of the turn of the last century. I doubt many fans around today care about that, but the history books do say we were the Barcelona and Real Madrid of the pre war years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts