Am I missing something in the whole Heinze transfer saga....

yom 1

Tauren wrote:

The PL will automatically favour a player more then a club. I honestly believe if there is anyway at all for them to rule in favour of Heinze, they will do so regardless of any other facts

But this was perfectly ok once united entered the Tevez debate!

As you pointed out the PL made fools of themselves over Tevez which is why they will want to be 100% certain that this decision is correct in line with the facts presented to them.

I aint sayin he will defo win his case and join the pool. To be honest I think he isnt the player united signed since his injury and would prefer we werent in for him. Im just tryin to say that your logic of " I just don't see the PL ruling in favour of us, against Heinze and Liverpool, regardless of the facts " smacks of "I cant believe he wants to join the pool cos he was a fans favourite" bitterness.

Can I ask you why you want Utd to win the case just so you can keep a player on the books who doesnt want to be there? I know Lyon have put an offer in but he doesnt have to agree personal terms with them.

Mitch Connor

yom 1 wrote:

But this was perfectly ok once united entered the Tevez debate!

Yes, because ALL the facts were clearly on the side of the player according to the original contracts signed by the original west ham board, and re-affirmed by the new board in december. The cases of Heinze and Tevez are completely different.

And i only don't want heinze going to Liverpool because they are a title/CL spot rival and he is better then what they have. He can go abroad if he wants, and i hope he does.

Would you want liverpool to sell united a player that would strengthen the united side?

yom 1

Tauren wrote:

Would you want liverpool to sell united a player that would strengthen the united side?

Of course I wouldnt, but only a first team regular not a bit part sub. As I said I dont think he is the same player Utd signed since his injury and really doubt he will improve the Pool that much if any.

Mr Alan

And would you possibly agree that Utd have been favoured on occassion? Eg. why did Anderson get a work permit straight away when it took Gonzalez, a much more established international young talent, over a year to get one?

(I'm not sure what say, if any, the PL have in those issues,but you get my point)

Mitch Connor

yom 1 wrote:

Of course I wouldnt, but only a first team regular not a bit part sub. As I said I dont think he is the same player Utd signed since his injury and really doubt he will improve the Pool that much if any.

He was only a bit part sub when regaining fitness - he was picked ahead of Evra in games against Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea, all games that mattered. I still prefer Evra myself, but Heinze is a good option, and you need options in football. So you would not mind if United were weak in central midfield and needed a tought tackler, and Liverpool sold Sissoko to us?

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

And would you possibly agree that Utd have been favoured on occassion? Eg. why did Anderson get a work permit straight away when it took Gonzalez, a much more established international young talent, over a year to get one?

(I'm not sure what say, if any, the PL have in those issues,but you get my point)

I don't get your point because the PL had nothing to do with either decision. The Home Office made the call.

Maybe United have been favoured in the past - but i can much more easily remember times we got screwed (though you'd not agree)

Mr Alan

So Utd carry sway with the Brittish government? Interesting

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

Listen Muppet, if your going to try and use my first name on a public forum, at least have the cop on and decency to get it right, will you? My name is not *******.

Sorry bout that *******. I'll try get it right in future.

Hobart wrote:

I've no real interest on doing any research on your posts, I will argue a point with you if I feel that you are wrong however. My post was not directed solely at you, the hint was in the use of the word fans.

I'm pretty sure you were insinuating that I had changed my opinion on Henize because of his likely move to liverpool, which is not true.

Hobart wrote:

The line your dubbing out above is mainly used by those trying to save face of some sort.

How would I be trying to save face when I have said all along that I though United would be doing well to get £7 million for him from anyone.

zAbbo

Breaking News on SLY, Heinze has LOST his attempt to move to Liverpool.

Doubt we've heard the end of this, I'd much prefer if Liverpool moved on a got someone else in.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

Sorry bout that *******. I'll try get it right in future.

Again Muppet, you don't know me, you have never met me, I'm asking you for the last time to drop this tedious act. My name is not *******, I'd appreciate it if you dropped the pretence now. Thanks.

The Muppet wrote:

I'm pretty sure you were insinuating that I had changed my opinion on Henize because of his likely move to liverpool, which is not true.

you were pretty sure that my name was Derreck and Derrick, you were wrong there too, weren't you?

The Muppet wrote:

How would I be trying to save face when I have said all along that I though United would be doing well to get £7 million for him from anyone.

I never said you were trying to save face. I was talking in general.

Mr Alan

****

Hobart

Confirmed by BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/6954531.stm , thank god for that, is all I can say.

Mitch Connor

hopefully he'll bugger off to spain or france or italy. or even to Spurs in an exchange deal for Berbatov.....

However, I doubt this will be the end of it. I can see Heinze trying to take this to court. Not sure if he can though - if the parties agree to accept the panel ruling then I'm not sure they can appeal the decision if they don't like it.

Sizzler

LOL @ Rafa

What was he thinking !

More to the point what was Gabby thinking....will he ever be welcome in a Utd shirt again :eek:

Peyton Manning

:D:D:D

Oh wait, now the pool fans will say they never really wanted him anyway... :rolleyes:

Sizzler

Archimedes wrote:

:D:D:D

Oh wait, now the pool fans will say they never really wanted him anyway... :rolleyes:

They wanted a 2nd choice left back who likes to give away peno's

Mitch Connor

pah - they could just play Finnan at left back and be sorted. Dirty player....

whatawaster

Sizzler wrote:

They wanted a 2nd choice left back who likes to give away peno's

I've always said we didn't give enough penalties away

Seriously, we now have ten days to sign a decent centre back.

adox

I`m delighted.I`d hate to see any United player signing for Liverpool.

Mr Alan

****.

forget him now,shame.

think if he brings it to court he'd have a good chance of winning.

but Liverpool should just forget about him now and get cover in. Only position we are soft in

mike65

*shrugs* Liverpool will just buy someone else if they think they really need cover for the left side of defence.

Mike.

Mr Alan

Think he was more being bought for CB cover.

Been impressed with Arbeloa at LB and didn't think i would be.

Mitch Connor

I really would love to see what that letter says.

Mr Alan

me too

mike65

"yer not going to fcuking liverpool ye wee sissy!"

Mike.

Mitch Connor

here is a bit more: (Its from www.mirror.co.uk)

Gabriel Heinze has lost his battle to force Manchester United to sell him to Liverpool.

The Argentina defender had gone to a Premier League panel claiming United had written a letter allowing him to leave if another club offered a fee of £6.8million.

The panel today dismissed Heinze's case and backed United, who maintained they made it clear to the 29-year-old both orally and in writing that he would not be permitted to join one of their title rivals.

It now appears that if Heinze is intent on leaving the club he will have to move abroad.

Advertisement
The Premier League said in a statement: "The hearing concluded that nature and intention of the disputed 13 June 2007 letter, especially when taken in context of verbal discussions and Manchester United FC's transfer policy, was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer.

"Furthermore the hearing finds the letter constitutes an 'agreement to agree', and did not create an obligation or binding agreement for the club to transfer the player to any particular club.

"In other words the letter is evidence of an intention to negotiate, both between the parties and with potential buying clubs, and not evidence of any intention to create legal relations."

Heinze does have the right to appeal to the Premier League appeals committee, which is made up of an independent, legally-qualified chairman, a member of the Premier League panel and a PFA appointee.

The decision has delighted United, who were represented by both manager Sir Alex Ferguson and chief executive David Gill at the hearing in London.
_____________________

Would be very surprised if Heinze did not appeal, but then if he loses it will be unlikely he has time to negotiate with anyone else - so would be stuck at United, probably not playing at any level (HA!) until january.

The Rooster

Tauren wrote:

here is a bit more: (Its from www.mirror.co.uk)

The Premier League said in a statement: "The hearing concluded that nature and intention of the disputed 13 June 2007 letter, especially when taken in context of verbal discussions and Manchester United FC's transfer policy, was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer.

I'm surprised the PL allowed themselves to be convinced that this was relevant. But it seems United put more of an effort into this than Liverpool did.

I didnt realise the letter was so recent. I'd say his agent was on to Liverpool the minute he got it.

Mitch Connor

The Rooster wrote:

I'm surprised the PL allowed themselves to be convinced that this was relevant. But it seems United put more of an effort into this than Liverpool did.

I didnt realise the letter was so recent. I'd say his agent was on to Liverpool the minute he got it.

Personally, i'd have though this bit was more relevant: was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer

If Heinze was trying to argue the letter was legally binding, the fact is seemingly clearly stated he would not be sold domestically would be a major reason why United would have no legal obligation to sell him to Liverpool

Mr Alan

Obviously the PL was star struck when 'Sir Alex' arrived.

the PL love Utd, end of story.

Isn't that right Tauren

Mitch Connor

Yep - seems to be.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Bastids, looked like they judged it on the facts of the case. Who would have seen that one coming eh Tauren :rolleyes:

Mitch Connor

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Bastids, looked like they judged it on the facts of the case. Who would have seen that one coming eh Tauren :rolleyes:

Not me - going by past behaviour of the PL.

Mr Alan

didn't Rafa say something shrewd when asked if they would be signing another defender if the Heinze deal fell through, responding with something like, we will not be signing another left sided defender if the deal falls through? possible CB cover on the cards?

Sizzler

millersangel wrote:

didn't Rafa say something shrewd when asked if they would be signing another defender if the Heinze deal fell through, responding with something like, we will not be signing another left sided defender if the deal falls through? possible CB cover on the cards?

Djimi Traore was seen at Melwood this afternoon, rumours are rife on LFC messageboards that hes going to re-sign! :eek:

The Rooster

Tauren wrote:

Personally, i'd have though this bit was more relevant: was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer

Just confused me a little that if the letter really is "unambiguous", why did they have to preface it with "when taken in context of verbal discussions and Manchester United FC's transfer policy"?

I pretty sure the letter was not unambigous, otherwise it would not have taken this long to sort out. But obviously when taken together with verbals/policy, the PL were able to reach their conclusion.

One thing for sure is that no player is ever going to rely on a side letter received from ManU from now on.

Peyton Manning

The Rooster wrote:

I pretty sure the letter was not unambigous

And youve seen this letter, yes?

The Rooster

Archimedes wrote:

And youve seen this letter, yes?

You've really got this reading of and analysing posts down to a fine art :rolleyes:

PHB

I'm pretty happy about this, I feel Heinze would have been a great player for Liverpool. He'll go off somewhere else now, the question is will it be for somewhere like Lyon, or maybe somewhere like Spurs or Newcastle, or maybe even a CL Spanish club.

Peyton Manning

Well youve said your 'pretty sure' that it wasnt unambiguous despite not seeing the letter even after the Premier League - who have actually seen the letter -stated that it was. Now obviously its not going to be a stroll into court, hand over the letter and bobs your uncle, deal cancelled. Theres procedure to these sort of things that make them drag out - not everything is as simple as you seem to think it is.

Mr Alan

Doubt he can go to Spurs or Newcastle, they seem to be saying the ruling was made as it has to be a foreign move as opposed to a Premiership contender.

Sizzler: Good thing i don't put any stock in those message boards isn't it?

Peyton Manning

PHB wrote:

I'm pretty happy about this, I feel Heinze would have been a great player for Liverpool. He'll go off somewhere else now, the question is will it be for somewhere like Lyon, or maybe somewhere like Spurs or Newcastle, or maybe even a CL Spanish club.

Cant happen, as the letter envisages only an international transfer - this would give Liverpool solid grounds to appeal and I doubt United would slip up at this stage. I reckon a few clubs in Spain might be knocking around, but not at the price Liverpool offered. Wouldnt be surprised to see AC Milan make a bid - Maldini cant have too long left can he?

~Rebel~

Archimedes wrote:

Well youve said your 'pretty sure' that it wasnt unambiguous despite not seeing the letter even after the Premier League - who have actually seen the letter -stated that it was. Now obviously its not going to be a stroll into court, hand over the letter and bobs your uncle, deal cancelled. Theres procedure to these sort of things that make them drag out - not everything is as simple as you seem to think it is.

Archimedes - if the letter clearly states (unambiguously) that it envisages only a foreign move, do you really honestly think it would have gone anywhere near this far? Really? Pure simple logic dictates that it wasn't quite as clear as that. Noone would have wasted their time, money and resources on something that very clearly stated the move was impossible.

Rafa would want to get someone in for CB pretty soon anyway. LB is fine with 3 decent players there + Insua, but we really need CB cover. Given that we've obviously got 7 mill earmarked, it shouldnt be too hard to get a potential standin anyway.

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

Again Muppet, you don't know me, you have never met me, I'm asking you for the last time to drop this tedious act. My name is not *******, I'd appreciate it if you dropped the pretence now. Thanks.

You're confusing me ******, you put us on first name terms, Stiill if you are unhappy about it now just say so andwe canl revert to using usernames.

Hobart wrote:

you were pretty sure that my name was ******and ******, you were wrong there too, weren't you?



I never said you were trying to save face. I was talking in general.

You quoted my post so naturally I assume you were referring to me, an easy mistake to make under such circumstances.

It appears that he is not going to Liverpool, I'm stiil not bothered if Heinze goes to Liverpool or any other premiership team for the reasons stated. It is a pity he has soured his relationship with United Fans over this saga as he was held in very high regard before this.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

You're confusing me ******, you put us on first name terms, Stiill if you are unhappy about it now just say so andwe canl revert to using usernames.

I've really no inclination to carry on with the mind numbingly boring conversation. You put your name in your profile for the world to see (subsequently deleted) I have not. You still can't get it right no matter how many forms of ******etc... you attempt. pathetic trolling tbh. Get over yourself.

The Muppet wrote:

You quoted my post so naturally I assume you were referring to me, an easy mistake to make under such circumstances.

I quoted your post, that's true, I replied in general, that's also true, read between the lines.

The Muppet wrote:

It appears that he is not going to Liverpool, I'm stiil not bothered if Heinze goes to Liverpool or any other premiership team for the reasons stated.

Tell me this, did you even read the reasoning behind the decision?

Mitch Connor

Archimedes wrote:

Cant happen, as the letter envisages only an international transfer - this would give Liverpool solid grounds to appeal and I doubt United would slip up at this stage. I reckon a few clubs in Spain might be knocking around, but not at the price Liverpool offered. Wouldnt be surprised to see AC Milan make a bid - Maldini cant have too long left can he?

I don't know about that. From what i can see, the ruling simply affirms that United don't HAVE to sell him to a club they don't want to - not that he can not be sold domestically.

astrofool

They can always create another letter that allows him to move domestically except to A/L/C. I doubt Heinze would be interested in a move to Tottenham or Newcastle anyway.

Mitch Connor

astrofool wrote:

They can always create another letter that allows him to move domestically except to A/L/C. I doubt Heinze would be interested in a move to Tottenham or Newcastle anyway.

they don't need to create another letter, that is completely missing the point.

Heinze's case was that the letter constituted a release fee clause and once a team offered that price it had to be accepted. All the hearing has said is that this is not the case. They agree with United in saying the letter is only an offer to treat, or whatever the term would be. Basically, it is not a release fee clause and United still retain the right to accept/reject bids as they see fit.

The letter does not mean United can not sell him to a domestic side, it just means they don't have to.

Guy:Incognito

Sizzler wrote:

Djimi Traore was seen at Melwood this afternoon, rumours are rife on LFC messageboards that hes going to re-sign! :eek:

Thats not even a tiny bit funny. Dont ever say anythign liek that again. You could end up jinxing it and making it come true.

Chucky the tree

Pretty pleases this has fallen through, waste of money. Will United sell him or will he stay and help them with what seems to be a bit of relegation battle united have got themselves into?

Bateman

Surely he'll leave at this stage, bridges look well and truly burned. I have to say I'd have a little chuckle if he left and Evra got injured.