Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'Defoe was not eligible to play' - Daily Mail

Options
  • 26-01-2009 11:48am
    #1
    yiddo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭


    'Defoe was not eligible to play':
    Burnley launch appeal against Spurs over Carling Cup defeat

    By Sportsmail Reporter
    Last updated at 10:09 AM on 26th January 2009

    Burnley are attempting to get Tottenham Hotspur thrown out of the Carling Cup final at Wembley as they believe Jermain Defoe was not eligible to play in last week's semi-final.

    The Championship side will write to the Football League on whether Defoe should have appeared in the second leg - when he was not eligible for the first.

    The Clarets believe the rulebook state players must be signed before the 'tie' starts as both legs are part of the one result, reports The Daily Mirror.

    It is understood Defoe was not registered as a Spurs player before the first leg despite being unveiled to fans at White Hart Lane following his impending transfer from Portsmouth.

    Burnley were two minutes from Wembley last week after dragging Spurs level 4-4 on aggregate before losing 6-4 in extra-time.

    Roman Pavlyuchenko scored one and Defoe netted the other leaving Burnley to study the rulebook.

    from todays Daily Mail

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1127498/Defoe-eligible-play-Burnley-launch-appeal-Spurs-Carling-Cup-defeat.html?ITO=1490


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    therecklessone
    Registered Users Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭therecklessone


    SSN say the Football League have confirmed he was eligible.


  • Options
    #3
    ziedth
    Registered Users Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭ziedth


    Jesus that's desperate IMO.

    Fair enough if he wasn't properly registered or cup tied or what have you but that is Truly scraping the bottom of the barrell.

    I'm embarresed for them TBH.


  • Options
    #4
    therecklessone
    Registered Users Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭therecklessone


    ziedth wrote: »
    Jesus that's desperate IMO.

    Fair enough if he wasn't properly registered or cup tied or what have you but that is Truly scraping the bottom of the barrell.

    I'm embarresed for them TBH.

    Levy would have done exactly the same, we are in no position to look down on others considering our last 18 months.


  • Options
    #5
    ziedth
    Registered Users Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭ziedth


    therecklessone wrote: »
    Levy would have done exactly the same, we are in no position to look down on others considering our last 18 months.

    And I would have said the exact same thing had we done it TBH, But I do agree with you that Levey would certainly have looked into it.


Advertisement