Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread [mod warning #11145, #32140 (see OP)]

poolboy

Please please be true i am clinging on to this rumor with my remaining finger nail till someone cruelly snaps it off to

murpho999

Not sure how good or bad Koptalk is, but here is a vid I found saying that the 15th July rumour is rubbish.
Vid is a bit annoying as he shouldn't make it during a World Cup match!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1edroUEuLu8

wobblyknees

murpho999 wrote: »

Not sure how good or bad Koptalk is................

http://koptalkinsider.wordpress.com/

mike65

I remember when Kraptalk forums were free to browse without signing up, ah twas all fields back then (full of cow sh1te)

Kess73

A new low for the thread. Duncan Oldham's mug looking out at me.:mad:

I suppose at least it gives a look, for LFC fans who do not know who he is, at what a conman looks like. Pity his jug eared partner in crime was not in the picture (maybe he was, but I would not waste time watching any vid with that confirmed conman in it) as people might have gotten a laugh from the sight of that plug lookalike.

Blackhorse Slim

if koptalk says it's rubbish, then it's probably true.

murpho999

Sorry lads, hadn't come across Koptalk before but found the vid through Google. Having read Wobbly's link I realise now he's a complete chancer.

wobblyknees

murpho999 wrote: »

Sorry lads, hadn't come across Koptalk before but found the vid through Google. Having read Wobbly's link I realise now he's a complete chancer.

He's caused a load of hassle over the years and is basically a scam artist. So much so he apparantly ripped of gifts destined for a well known hospital in Liverpool.

The irony of it all is that circa 2000, he actually had a pretty decent website with real contributors like Richie Partridge, Tommy Smith and Paul Tomkins. The greedy fool messed it up for himself in a very public way and now has no integrity whatsoever.

SlickRic

oh great.

Sky Sports wrote: »

Serbia international Milan Jovanovic has revealed he could pull out of his move to Liverpool.


The 29-year-old signed a pre-contract agreement with the Premier League giants in February as his deal with Belgian side Standard Liege was coming to an end this summer.


But the Reds then failed to qualify for the UEFA Champions League and manager Rafael Benitez has since left Anfield and joined Inter Milan.
There has been speculation Benitez will attempt to hijack the transfer and take the striker with him to the San Siro.


And Jovanovic has claimed he may be able to pull out of the move, which was set to see him sign a three-year contract at Anfield.


"There is an agreement signed with Liverpool," he is quoted as saying on Tuttomercatoweb.com.


"But if either party wants to end it, it's not impossible."


AC Milan,Juventus and Valencia were all thought to be tracking Jovanovic when his agreement with Liverpool was initially announced.


And he has provided further evidence of his quality at the World Cup, scoring the only goal in Serbia's 1-0 upset of Germany.

apologies if already posted.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6223935,00.html

LuckyLloyd

SlickRic wrote: »

oh great.



apologies if already posted.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6223935,00.html

Mr Alan

****-he looks like a tasty player

Mister men

Load of boll ox i'd say.

The Muppet

Kess73 wrote: »

A new low for the thread. Duncan Oldham's mug looking out at me.:mad:

I suppose at least it gives a look, for LFC fans who do not know who he is, at what a conman looks like.

(maybe he was, but I would not waste time watching any vid with that confirmed conman in it)

wobblyknees wrote: »

He's caused a load of hassle over the years and is basically a scam artist. .

Has any of this been proven in a court? If not ye are playing a dangerous game.

5ForKeeps

The Muppet wrote: »

Has any of this been proven in a court? If not ye are playing a dangerous game.

It has being proven, check out insider insider on the web site given on the previous page. Oldham is now living in Spain due to some trouble he got into with the british government over some unpaid monies.

wobblyknees

The Muppet wrote: »

Has any of this been proven in a court? If not ye are playing a dangerous game.

At the risk of repeating myself:

http://koptalkinsider.wordpress.com/

D'Agger

The Muppet wrote: »

Has any of this been proven in a court? If not ye are playing a dangerous game.

Ah c'mon Muppet - you know as well as everybody else here this guy's reputation for spouting bullshít. I'm not calling him a conman but the guys like The S*n gossip column with legs and a double chin

event

PaulieC wrote: »

I know Xavi's a very, very good player but Alonso completely overshadowed him tonight imo - great performance.

Would love to see Matta come to us too if that were in any, tiny, miniscule possibility of that happening - great option out left

that chance is gone now anyway, reports are he's signed for Barca

D'Agger

event wrote: »

that chance is gone now anyway, reports are he's signed for Barca

But...but...they don't need him like we do!!!

101001

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

img

bbbbaaaaaaahahahhahah! Oh Dear Jesus! Your comic timing sir is above reproach... who'd a thought this thread would bring such joy.

Kess73

The Muppet wrote: »

Has any of this been proven in a court? If not ye are playing a dangerous game.

No dangerous game here at all.

The man has fled the UK because there is a court case pending over taxes not paid.


Alder Hey hospital still have not received a penny of money collected on Oldham's site using their name, and that will be persued.


His tv box "business" and skimmed Sky cards scheme was rumbled and so was the fact that he was selling items and not paying taxes, using fake names (both for himself and the business) and fake addresses.



Oh yeah there was also the small matter of him selling signed memorabilia with the claim that the club was allowing it. Something that stopped quickly when the club's legal team got involved and publicly stated that the memorabilia was neither genuine nor club approved.


There was also the paypal scam that was done to members of his site, with many members being charged multiple times and also years after they quit the site. This was chased up by members through Paypal and many those members placed all correspondences to do with that online for people to see.


His shyte website is also not a registered business and not a charity, and has been collecting payments for people for years and has no revenue payments made, so is also being chased for tax evasion on that count.

There is a very good reason why Oldham has never taken legal action over anyone calling him a conman. Actually two very good reasons.

The first is that it is true and that is what he is.

The second is that he knows he cannot just pop back to the UK and press charges on those of us who still have a UK address as well as an Irish one, as he will be arrested over tax evasion and many others will be able to persue him on the other issues.

wobblyknees

101001 wrote: »

bbbbaaaaaaahahahhahah! Oh Dear Jesus! Your comic timing sir is above reproach... who'd a thought this thread would bring such joy.

Are you being ironic?

Kess73

SlickRic wrote: »

oh great.



apologies if already posted.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6223935,00.html

Just Sky being slow to mention it I'm afraid. It came up during Rafa's first week with Inter.

101001

wobblyknees wrote: »

Are you being ironic?

no. Thought it was a brilliant use of an image. Very clever.

Kess73 wrote: »

Just Sky being slow to mention it I'm afraid. It came up during Rafa's first week with Inter.

didnt Jovanovic say after that though that he was still coming? Or was that from a club source?

Kess73

101001 wrote: »

no. Thought it was a brilliant use of an image. Very clever.

didnt Jovanovic say after that though that he was still coming? Or was that from a club source?

Bit like how Momo was still going to Everton, and yet he never got there.

whatawaster

Kess73 wrote: »

Bit like how Momo was still going to Everton, and yet he never got there.

I'm pretty sure he's signed a pre-contract with us though. Momo hadn't signed anything.

wobblyknees

101001 wrote: »

no. Thought it was a brilliant use of an image. Very clever.

Haha. Ok, thought you might have been given the delay in replying!

101001

whatawaster wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he's signed a pre-contract with us though. Momo hadn't signed anything.

Tis a long way across stanley park. But can a pre-contract be scrapped? Is it not legally binding in any way. I would assume that it can be scrapped by mutual consent and could possible be if Jovanovic kicks up a stink. I'd assume that the club wouldn't want a player who could potentially cause trouble before even arriving.

whatawaster

101001 wrote: »

Tis a long way across stanley park. But can a pre-contract be scrapped? Is it not legally binding in anyway. I would assume that it can be scrapped by mutual consent and could possible be if Jovanovic kicks up a stink. I'd assume that the club wouldn't want a player who could potentially cause trouble before even arriving.

We'd be mad to cancel it. Even if he's a complete tosser, he's shown at the world cup he's good enough to attract a few million in transfer fees. We can sell him in January if that's the case.

wobblyknees

whatawaster wrote: »

We'd be mad to cancel it. Even if he's a complete tosser, he's shown at the world cup he's good enough to attract a few million in transfer fees. We can sell him in January if that's the case.

Bloody Rafa and the terrible legacy he's left behind.

Kess73

101001 wrote: »

Tis a long way across stanley park. But can a pre-contract be scrapped? Is it not legally binding in any way. I would assume that it can be scrapped by mutual consent and could possible be if Jovanovic kicks up a stink. I'd assume that the club wouldn't want a player who could potentially cause trouble before even arriving.

Yeah pretty sure that a pre contract is nothing more than agreeing to join a club on the princible that the eventual contract is acceptable to both parties.

As such, all the player would have to do is make some unreasonable demands in terms of wages and that would free the player up if a better offer came in from elsewhere.

101001

whatawaster wrote: »

We'd be mad to cancel it. Even if he's a complete tosser, he's shown at the world cup he's good enough to attract a few million in transfer fees. We can sell him in January if that's the case.

Could be worth a punt... we all know how easy it is to off load disgruntled left wingers

101001

Kess73 wrote: »

Yeah pretty sure that a pre contract is nothing more than agreeing to join a club on the princible that the eventual contract is acceptable to both parties.

Yeah had a quick google of what is involved in a pre-contract (wiki)

Its impossible to know what the details of the contract are so in a sense it can still only be treated as a potential signing. All agreements could have been made though...yeah im one of those unbareably optimistic, unicorn and rainbows c*nts

5starpool

whatawaster wrote: »

We'd be mad to cancel it. Even if he's a complete tosser, he's shown at the world cup he's good enough to attract a few million in transfer fees. We can sell him in January if that's the case.

No we can't. We'd need special permission from Fifa to do that as you can't be transferred twice to different clubs in such a short period of time I believe.

whatawaster

5starpool wrote: »

No we can't. We'd need special permission from Fifa to do that as you can't be transferred twice to different clubs in such a short period of time I believe.

you can't play for 3 clubs in a season as far as i know. Plenty play for 2. Robbie Keane for example.

mike65

STUPID RUMOUR ALERT

*****The club will be sold by the 15th of July to Abu Dhabi United Group*****

How would that even be possible? They own Man City and the idea that two clubs that would be in direct competition could be own by the same company is most unlikely.

wobblyknees

mike65 wrote: »

STUPID RUMOUR ALERT

*****The club will be sold by the 15th of July to Abu Dhabi United Group*****

How would that even be possible? They own Man City and the idea that two clubs that would be in direct competition could be own by the same company is most unlikely.

I saw this one earlier, not sure which one I believe more.

Dear Liverpool fan. A big thank you from the club for passing on the rumours that we have been sold (fat chance like). Who would have thought texts like this would happen in season ticket renewal week. Please dont delete them just send them again when the away kit comes out and when the transfer window is about to close. Once again thanks. Christian Purslow (you can call me Christy)

The Muppet

Kess73 wrote: »

No dangerous game here at all.

.

kess, I've read a lot of these things about this before but he's innocent until proven guilty and if you repeat a slander or lible you are just as guilty as the original publisher. Imo it's wise not to do so unless you have evidence to prove what you say is true, otherwise it could come back and bite you.

101001

The Muppet wrote: »

kess, I've read a lot of these things about this before but he's innocent until proven guilty

No he is not... In the case of civil law, which covers libel laws the onus is on the person libeled to prove that what the libeler says is not the case. He is guilty until proven innocent. More often than not it is the original libeler that is sued although those that repeat the libel are liable also.

noodler

101001 wrote: »

No he is not... In the case of civil law, which covers libel laws the onus is on the person libeled to prove that what the libeler says is not the case. He is guilty until proven innocent. More often than not it is the original libeler that is sued although those that repeat the libel are liable.

What?

How does that matter?

If I put an article in one of the papers tomorrow saying you are a sex pest then by your logic everyone should believe it is true until you take me to court to prove me wrong?

Kess73

The Muppet wrote: »

kess, I've read a lot of these things about this before but he's innocent until proven guilty and if you repeat a slander or lible you are just as guilty as the original publisher. Imo it's wise not to do so unless you have evidence to prove what you say is true, otherwise it could come back and bite you.

I'll take my chances. Given where my brother works in Liverpool and where his other half works in liverpool, I have no doubts about two organisations that have reported Oldham to the police, that have had their claims investigated, and that an arrest will be made if he steps foot in the UK.

It is not for no reason that the man ran away from his home in Wallsend and went to Alicante. His claim in public to be a trading standards officer had a lot to do with that, especially when Trading standards got involved.

101001

noodler wrote: »

What?

How does that matter?

If I put an article in one of the papers tomorrow saying you are a sex pest then by your logic everyone should believe it is true until you take me to court to prove me wrong?

I didn't mention anything about belief. People can believe what they like. However, there is an onus to prove that you were in fact defamed which can be linked to belief.

But you can write whatever you want about me... I would have to go to court with evidence that im not a sex pest things like my erectile dysfunction... that in fact Ive been androgynous since I was 5 resulting from a rather tragic biking accident.

Dublin_Gunner

5starpool wrote: »

No we can't. We'd need special permission from Fifa to do that as you can't be transferred twice to different clubs in such a short period of time I believe.

Yes we could. You can be transferred twice in one season.

As stated, Robbie Keane is a case in point.

Kess73

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Yes we could. You can be transferred twice in one season.

As stated, Robbie Keane is a case in point.

I think the ruling is that three different clubs cannot be involved in the one season rule.

As in if Spurs sold Keane to Liverpool in August, and then Liverpool sold Keane to Wolves in January.


Spurs to Liverpool to Spurs is fine, as it is the original selling club that he returned to, and as such, he only played with one different team that season other than his original club.


Or at least that is my understanding of it.

whatawaster

Kess73 wrote: »

I think the ruling is that three different clubs cannot be involved in the one season rule.

As in if Spurs sold Keane to Liverpool in August, and then Liverpool sold Keane to Wolves in January.


Spurs to Liverpool to Spurs is fine, as it is the original selling club that he returned to, and as such, he only played with one different team that season other than his original club.


Or at least that is my understanding of it.

I think, and i'm too lazy to look into this - you can't be registered for 3 clubs in one season. His contract with Liege ends before next season starts (i presume it's first of July) so it would only be Liverpool and 1 other.
There are plenty of examples of players joining a club and then leaving in January - either permanently or on loan. Strangely, none immediately spring to mind, but i'm sure there are a few.

Edit: Found it

"Players may be registered with maximum of three clubs during a season . . .
eligible to play official matches for two of these . . . "

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/06/30/78/statusinhalt_en_122007.pdf

page 9 of that pdf

Mr Alan

The Muppet-Human Rights Defender. I love this place.

Dublin_Gunner

Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one
season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches
for two clubs

Section 5 (3)

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/66/98/97/regulationsstatusandtransfer%5fen%5f1210.pdf

In other words, we could sign him before the season gets under way, and sell him in January, and he could play for Liverpool and the next club (as his contract expires before the start of the season).

If however, we bought him in September (and he was still signed to Liege at the time, and played a match for them) we could still sell him on in January, but he wouldn't be able to play for the 3rd club.

**edit lol Whatawaster got there before me!

Glico Man

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Section 5 (3)

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/66/98/97/regulationsstatusandtransfer%5fen%5f1210.pdf

In other words, we could sign him before the season gets under way, and sell him in January, and he could play for Liverpool and the next club (as his contract expires before the start of the season).

If however, we bought him in September (and he was still signed to Liege at the time, and played a match for them) we could still sell him on in January, but he wouldn't be able to play for the 3rd club.

I think we had to go to Fifa in regards to Mascherano because he was signed by West Ham after he had played a game or two for Corinthians, we were his third club

wobblyknees

aaronh007 wrote: »

I think we had to go to Fifa in regards to Mascherano because he was signed by West Ham after he had played a game or two for Corinthians, we were his third club

With the argument being made that it was against eu law that he couldnt play football and was being held against his will, or something like that.

The Muppet

101001 wrote: »

No he is not... In the case of civil law, which covers libel laws the onus is on the person libeled to prove that what the libeler says is not the case. He is guilty until proven innocent. More often than not it is the original libeler that is sued although those that repeat the libel are liable also.

But you can write whatever you want about me... I would have to go to court with evidence that im not a sex pest things like my erectile dysfunction... that in fact Ive been androgynous since I was 5 resulting from a rather tragic biking accident.

Dont be talking bull**** ,the onus of proof is on the accuser to prove their accusations.

5starpool

Legal discussion forum, tbh.