http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/07/15/sfntev115.xml

From above Telegraph article: "...West Ham need to hold their nerve. They
own Tevez's registration and the Premier League are satisfied that they
terminated their third-party agreements with MSI on April 27. If Manchester
United want to buy Tevez, then they need to pay West Ham a transfer fee.
Simple as that..."

Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million quid!)


"Joerg Estelmann"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f7d8bf$v6b$1@online.de...
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/07/15/sfntev115.xml
>
> From above Telegraph article: "...West Ham need to hold their nerve. They
> own Tevez's registration and the Premier League are satisfied that they
> terminated their third-party agreements with MSI on April 27. If
Manchester
> United want to buy Tevez, then they need to pay West Ham a transfer fee.
> Simple as that..."
>
>

"Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
news:f7d8d4$v7u$1@online.de...
> Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million quid!)
>
>
> "Joerg Estelmann"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:f7d8bf$v6b$1@online.de...
>>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/07/15/sfntev115.xml
>>
>> From above Telegraph article: "...West Ham need to hold their nerve. They
>> own Tevez's registration and the Premier League are satisfied that they
>> terminated their third-party agreements with MSI on April 27. If
> Manchester
>> United want to buy Tevez, then they need to pay West Ham a transfer fee.
>> Simple as that..."
>>
>>


That's exactly the way we should play it. If you're holding the cards (or 
registration in this case) you play to the end and don't get bullied off the 
prize.



--



www.guitarxchange.co.uk

Exactly! Anyone else watching the Copa America Final tonight?


"WireFree Systems"  schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:5L2dnXPxi6Jg-wfbnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message
> news:f7d8d4$v7u$1@online.de...
> > Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million
quid!)
> >
> >
> > "Joerg Estelmann"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:f7d8bf$v6b$1@online.de...
> >>
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/07/15/sfntev115.xml
> >>
> >> From above Telegraph article: "...West Ham need to hold their nerve.
They
> >> own Tevez's registration and the Premier League are satisfied that they
> >> terminated their third-party agreements with MSI on April 27. If
> > Manchester
> >> United want to buy Tevez, then they need to pay West Ham a transfer
fee.
> >> Simple as that..."
> >>
> >>
>
>
> That's exactly the way we should play it. If you're holding the cards (or
> registration in this case) you play to the end and don't get bullied off
the
> prize.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.guitarxchange.co.uk
>
>
>
>

"Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
news:f7d8d4$v7u$1@online.de...
> Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million quid!)
>

Oh, and you think that's fair do you? £40m for a player that you got for an 
undisclosed, but widely believed to be a nominal fee? Even though your 
dealings in all this have been less than honest?

This slant on the story from the Daily Mail is more likely hinting at the 
way it will pan out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=468438&in_page_id=1779

.... Basically it means us conceding that we must deal with the Hammers 
directly - and with us possibly compensating Mr Joorabchian for the, er, 
groundwork that he has done already. Please take notice of the comments made 
by West Ham spokesman, Mike Lee, as an indication that West Ham are happy to 
deal with us. And also notice the paragraph above that, that hints that West 
Ham are unlikely to ask for even 20m....seeing as they've paid very likely 
next to nothing for Tevez.

I can see this being very close to how this deal will end. After all, why 
should we give a flying shag who gets the money.....as long as we get our 
player? And get him we shall. It is clear West Ham have been planning for a 
squad minus your star boy. He's ours. Deal with it, move on, and hope that 
any money you make will not be paid back to Joorabchian via a future court 
case. Personally, I hope he does end up with the cash.....he's probably 
invested more money into the ownership of the player's rights than the 
Hammers. He, along with Sheffield, are the ones getting stiffed after all.

bollocks u wont get him so piss orf
"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:i_wmi.27658$ri2.22197@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> "Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
> news:f7d8d4$v7u$1@online.de...
>> Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million quid!)
>>
>
> Oh, and you think that's fair do you? £40m for a player that you got for 
> an undisclosed, but widely believed to be a nominal fee? Even though your 
> dealings in all this have been less than honest?
>
> This slant on the story from the Daily Mail is more likely hinting at the 
> way it will pan out.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=468438&in_page_id=1779
>
> ... Basically it means us conceding that we must deal with the Hammers 
> directly - and with us possibly compensating Mr Joorabchian for the, er, 
> groundwork that he has done already. Please take notice of the comments 
> made by West Ham spokesman, Mike Lee, as an indication that West Ham are 
> happy to deal with us. And also notice the paragraph above that, that 
> hints that West Ham are unlikely to ask for even 20m....seeing as they've 
> paid very likely next to nothing for Tevez.
>
> I can see this being very close to how this deal will end. After all, why 
> should we give a flying shag who gets the money.....as long as we get our 
> player? And get him we shall. It is clear West Ham have been planning for 
> a squad minus your star boy. He's ours. Deal with it, move on, and hope 
> that any money you make will not be paid back to Joorabchian via a future 
> court case. Personally, I hope he does end up with the cash.....he's 
> probably invested more money into the ownership of the player's rights 
> than the Hammers. He, along with Sheffield, are the ones getting stiffed 
> after all.
>

"pied piper"  wrote in message 
news:jkxmi.27423$%Z3.26319@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> bollocks u wont get him so piss orf

Care to make a wager on that? I'll bet you, say, £100, that Carlos Tevez 
will be a Manchester United player within two weeks - with the blessing of 
both West Ham and the Premier League. We can let a third party from another 
team's newsgroup mediate this wager as a third party. I suggest someone from 
the Everton group. They have honest lads there.

Put your money where your mouth is?

like I said piss orf
"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:uxxmi.39546$KE1.9697@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> "pied piper"  wrote in message 
> news:jkxmi.27423$%Z3.26319@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>> bollocks u wont get him so piss orf
>
> Care to make a wager on that? I'll bet you, say, £100, that Carlos Tevez 
> will be a Manchester United player within two weeks - with the blessing of 
> both West Ham and the Premier League. We can let a third party from 
> another team's newsgroup mediate this wager as a third party. I suggest 
> someone from the Everton group. They have honest lads there.
>
> Put your money where your mouth is?
>

"pied piper"  wrote in message 
news:mSxmi.27430$%Z3.20995@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> like I said piss orf

Like I thought, all mouth.

You haven't elaborated whether your original posting (Tevez shirts) was
intended to be seen as serious "concern" on your behalf or if if you were
taking the p***. I am now convinced the latter was the case so no matter if
you get Tevez or not my opinion on you has been formed: Wanker!


"Slitheen"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dZxmi.28227$ri2.4723@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> "pied piper"  wrote in message
> news:mSxmi.27430$%Z3.20995@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> > like I said piss orf
>
> Like I thought, all mouth.
>
>

"Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
news:f7eauv$aqj$1@online.de...
> You haven't elaborated whether your original posting (Tevez shirts) was
> intended to be seen as serious "concern" on your behalf or if if you were
> taking the p***. I am now convinced the latter was the case so no matter 
> if
> you get Tevez or not my opinion on you has been formed: Wanker!
>
>

I didn't need to elaborate. I stated my case at the time. However, I 
couldn't give a flying fuck what you think.

No hard feelings though, good luck with next year's relegation battle!

-- 
Slitheen.
Manchester United - BIG Arrogant Northern Club :-)

arsewipe piss off back to ur own group
"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:tiymi.24696$uR5.10608@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> "Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
> news:f7eauv$aqj$1@online.de...
>> You haven't elaborated whether your original posting (Tevez shirts) was
>> intended to be seen as serious "concern" on your behalf or if if you were
>> taking the p***. I am now convinced the latter was the case so no matter 
>> if
>> you get Tevez or not my opinion on you has been formed: Wanker!
>>
>>
>
> I didn't need to elaborate. I stated my case at the time. However, I 
> couldn't give a flying fuck what you think.
>
> No hard feelings though, good luck with next year's relegation battle!
>
> -- 
> Slitheen.
> Manchester United - BIG Arrogant Northern Club :-)
>

"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:i_wmi.27658$ri2.22197@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> "Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
> news:f7d8d4$v7u$1@online.de...
>> Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million quid!)
>>
>
> Oh, and you think that's fair do you? £40m for a player that you got for 
> an undisclosed, but widely believed to be a nominal fee? Even though your 
> dealings in all this have been less than honest?

I don't know about £40 million, but of course it's fair that West Ham should 
receive market value for surrendering or transferring Tevez's registration. 
As long as the PL  maintain they won't transfer his registration 
unless/until West Ham are paid, then he can't play for any other club. The 
market value of his registration is how much it is worth to potential 
purchasers, now, and up to the expiry of the transfer window, not what West 
Ham may have paid for it in the past.

And, since the PL have made it plain there would be disciplinary 
repercussions for West Ham if the player's registration were to be released 
for nothing, the club's management would have to be crazy to do so.

As for honesty, if Joorbachian and MSI don't like West Ham receiving the 
money, then let them sue over it. I don't see why the identity of the 
recipient of the money should matter to Man Utd.

>
> This slant on the story from the Daily Mail is more likely hinting at the 
> way it will pan out.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=468438&in_page_id=1779
>

If you ever find a pro West Ham slant in any story in the Daily Mail, then 
treasure it as something more rare than a four leafed clover. That paper 
seems to have had a 'down' on the Hammers ever since Harry Redknapp kicked 
reporters out of the Chadwell Heath training ground a few years ago.

Slitheen,

You really are an ignorant knob.

It matters not what we paid for Tevez. If you care to look at the facts 
behind his transfer he was used as a sweetener by MSI in their attempt to 
buy west ham. Their attempt to buy failed (thank god) so in a nut shell they 
have lost one of their treasured assets namely Carlos Tevez. In case it had 
escaped your attention there is an international arrest warrant out for 
Joorbchian which proves he is suspected of breaking laws. Like I said, I and 
probably every other west ham fan in the world are ecstatic he/MSI didn't 
get their sweaty corrupt hands on my club.

You're ignorance is laughable in as much as part of your post below

QUOTE" .....as long as we get our player? And get him we shall. It is clear 
West Ham have been planning for a squad minus your star boy. He's ours. Deal 
with it, move on, and hope that any money you make will not be paid back to 
Joorabchian via a future court case. Personally, I hope he does end up with 
the cash.....he's probably invested more money into the ownership of the 
player's rights than the
Hammers. He, along with Sheffield, are the ones getting stiffed after all. 
UNQUOTE"

You aint got him yet, and what gives you the god given right to have him. 
The trouble with any of the top four clubs is you think you can just walk 
into any club you like and have any player you like using bully boy tactics. 
Not in this case. We hold his registration and we will dictate if, when, and 
for how much we are prepared to accept for releasing that playing 
registration to another club.

Until then he is and remains a west ham player.

No fuck off from our board as we are all bored with your arrogance.

Mel.



"BAC"  wrote in message 
news:1184573185.33529.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
> news:i_wmi.27658$ri2.22197@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> "Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
>> news:f7d8d4$v7u$1@online.de...
>>> Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million 
>>> quid!)
>>>
>>
>> Oh, and you think that's fair do you? £40m for a player that you got for 
>> an undisclosed, but widely believed to be a nominal fee? Even though your 
>> dealings in all this have been less than honest?
>
> I don't know about £40 million, but of course it's fair that West Ham 
> should receive market value for surrendering or transferring Tevez's 
> registration. As long as the PL  maintain they won't transfer his 
> registration unless/until West Ham are paid, then he can't play for any 
> other club. The market value of his registration is how much it is worth 
> to potential purchasers, now, and up to the expiry of the transfer window, 
> not what West Ham may have paid for it in the past.
>
> And, since the PL have made it plain there would be disciplinary 
> repercussions for West Ham if the player's registration were to be 
> released for nothing, the club's management would have to be crazy to do 
> so.
>
> As for honesty, if Joorbachian and MSI don't like West Ham receiving the 
> money, then let them sue over it. I don't see why the identity of the 
> recipient of the money should matter to Man Utd.
>
>>
>> This slant on the story from the Daily Mail is more likely hinting at the 
>> way it will pan out.
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=468438&in_page_id=1779
>>
>
> If you ever find a pro West Ham slant in any story in the Daily Mail, then 
> treasure it as something more rare than a four leafed clover. That paper 
> seems to have had a 'down' on the Hammers ever since Harry Redknapp kicked 
> reporters out of the Chadwell Heath training ground a few years ago.
>

Well said Mel.


"Mel"  wrote in message 
news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
> Slitheen,
>
> You really are an ignorant knob.
>
> It matters not what we paid for Tevez. If you care to look at the facts 
> behind his transfer he was used as a sweetener by MSI in their attempt to 
> buy west ham. Their attempt to buy failed (thank god) so in a nut shell 
> they have lost one of their treasured assets namely Carlos Tevez. In case 
> it had escaped your attention there is an international arrest warrant out 
> for Joorbchian which proves he is suspected of breaking laws. Like I said, 
> I and probably every other west ham fan in the world are ecstatic he/MSI 
> didn't get their sweaty corrupt hands on my club.
>
> You're ignorance is laughable in as much as part of your post below
>
> QUOTE" .....as long as we get our player? And get him we shall. It is 
> clear West Ham have been planning for a squad minus your star boy. He's 
> ours. Deal with it, move on, and hope that any money you make will not be 
> paid back to Joorabchian via a future court case. Personally, I hope he 
> does end up with the cash.....he's probably invested more money into the 
> ownership of the player's rights than the
> Hammers. He, along with Sheffield, are the ones getting stiffed after all. 
> UNQUOTE"
>
> You aint got him yet, and what gives you the god given right to have him. 
> The trouble with any of the top four clubs is you think you can just walk 
> into any club you like and have any player you like using bully boy 
> tactics. Not in this case. We hold his registration and we will dictate 
> if, when, and for how much we are prepared to accept for releasing that 
> playing registration to another club.
>
> Until then he is and remains a west ham player.
>
> No fuck off from our board as we are all bored with your arrogance.
>
> Mel.
>
>
>
> "BAC"  wrote in message 
> news:1184573185.33529.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>>
>> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
>> news:i_wmi.27658$ri2.22197@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>> "Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
>>> news:f7d8d4$v7u$1@online.de...
>>>> Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million 
>>>> quid!)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and you think that's fair do you? £40m for a player that you got for 
>>> an undisclosed, but widely believed to be a nominal fee? Even though 
>>> your dealings in all this have been less than honest?
>>
>> I don't know about £40 million, but of course it's fair that West Ham 
>> should receive market value for surrendering or transferring Tevez's 
>> registration. As long as the PL  maintain they won't transfer his 
>> registration unless/until West Ham are paid, then he can't play for any 
>> other club. The market value of his registration is how much it is worth 
>> to potential purchasers, now, and up to the expiry of the transfer 
>> window, not what West Ham may have paid for it in the past.
>>
>> And, since the PL have made it plain there would be disciplinary 
>> repercussions for West Ham if the player's registration were to be 
>> released for nothing, the club's management would have to be crazy to do 
>> so.
>>
>> As for honesty, if Joorbachian and MSI don't like West Ham receiving the 
>> money, then let them sue over it. I don't see why the identity of the 
>> recipient of the money should matter to Man Utd.
>>
>>>
>>> This slant on the story from the Daily Mail is more likely hinting at 
>>> the way it will pan out.
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=468438&in_page_id=1779
>>>
>>
>> If you ever find a pro West Ham slant in any story in the Daily Mail, 
>> then treasure it as something more rare than a four leafed clover. That 
>> paper seems to have had a 'down' on the Hammers ever since Harry Redknapp 
>> kicked reporters out of the Chadwell Heath training ground a few years 
>> ago.
>>
>
>

He's probably one of those so called Man Utd supporters who has never been 
within 50 miles of Old Trafford.

Mel.


"Billericay Hammer"  wrote in message 
news:f7gfdj$m5o$1@aioe.org...
> Well said Mel.
>
>
> "Mel"  wrote in message 
> news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
>> Slitheen,
>>
>> You really are an ignorant knob.
>>
>> It matters not what we paid for Tevez. If you care to look at the facts 
>> behind his transfer he was used as a sweetener by MSI in their attempt to 
>> buy west ham. Their attempt to buy failed (thank god) so in a nut shell 
>> they have lost one of their treasured assets namely Carlos Tevez. In case 
>> it had escaped your attention there is an international arrest warrant 
>> out for Joorbchian which proves he is suspected of breaking laws. Like I 
>> said, I and probably every other west ham fan in the world are ecstatic 
>> he/MSI didn't get their sweaty corrupt hands on my club.
>>
>> You're ignorance is laughable in as much as part of your post below
>>
>> QUOTE" .....as long as we get our player? And get him we shall. It is 
>> clear West Ham have been planning for a squad minus your star boy. He's 
>> ours. Deal with it, move on, and hope that any money you make will not be 
>> paid back to Joorabchian via a future court case. Personally, I hope he 
>> does end up with the cash.....he's probably invested more money into the 
>> ownership of the player's rights than the
>> Hammers. He, along with Sheffield, are the ones getting stiffed after 
>> all. UNQUOTE"
>>
>> You aint got him yet, and what gives you the god given right to have him. 
>> The trouble with any of the top four clubs is you think you can just walk 
>> into any club you like and have any player you like using bully boy 
>> tactics. Not in this case. We hold his registration and we will dictate 
>> if, when, and for how much we are prepared to accept for releasing that 
>> playing registration to another club.
>>
>> Until then he is and remains a west ham player.
>>
>> No fuck off from our board as we are all bored with your arrogance.
>>
>> Mel.
>>
>>
>>
>> "BAC"  wrote in message 
>> news:1184573185.33529.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>>>
>>> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
>>> news:i_wmi.27658$ri2.22197@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>> "Joerg Estelmann"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:f7d8d4$v7u$1@online.de...
>>>>> Okay, Fergie... you want the geezer? Hand us the money (40 million 
>>>>> quid!)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and you think that's fair do you? £40m for a player that you got 
>>>> for an undisclosed, but widely believed to be a nominal fee? Even 
>>>> though your dealings in all this have been less than honest?
>>>
>>> I don't know about £40 million, but of course it's fair that West Ham 
>>> should receive market value for surrendering or transferring Tevez's 
>>> registration. As long as the PL  maintain they won't transfer his 
>>> registration unless/until West Ham are paid, then he can't play for any 
>>> other club. The market value of his registration is how much it is worth 
>>> to potential purchasers, now, and up to the expiry of the transfer 
>>> window, not what West Ham may have paid for it in the past.
>>>
>>> And, since the PL have made it plain there would be disciplinary 
>>> repercussions for West Ham if the player's registration were to be 
>>> released for nothing, the club's management would have to be crazy to do 
>>> so.
>>>
>>> As for honesty, if Joorbachian and MSI don't like West Ham receiving the 
>>> money, then let them sue over it. I don't see why the identity of the 
>>> recipient of the money should matter to Man Utd.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This slant on the story from the Daily Mail is more likely hinting at 
>>>> the way it will pan out.
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=468438&in_page_id=1779
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you ever find a pro West Ham slant in any story in the Daily Mail, 
>>> then treasure it as something more rare than a four leafed clover. That 
>>> paper seems to have had a 'down' on the Hammers ever since Harry 
>>> Redknapp kicked reporters out of the Chadwell Heath training ground a 
>>> few years ago.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Mel"  wrote in message 
news:0NWdnWRt0fDBWwbbnZ2dnUVZ8qeknZ2d@bt.com...
> He's probably one of those so called Man Utd supporters who has never been 
> within 50 miles of Old Trafford.
>

How original! Aren't you clever? If you are *really* clever, get my headers 
from any Usenet post, run the IP address through a 'who is' search and you 
shall see this computer is in....MANCHESTER. Fuck me, if I fell over I'd 
land on the steps of the club I've supported all my life. Sorry if that 
flies in the face of your ill conceived notion that we're all from down 
south and have only supported the club since we actually started to win 
stuff. LOL

Get some originality in your posts, you boring cunt.

"Mel"  wrote in message 
news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
> Slitheen,
>
> You really are an ignorant knob.
>
> It matters not what we paid for Tevez. If you care to look at the facts 
> behind his transfer he was used as a....[SNIP the "blah blah, I'm a boring 
> cunt" stuff]

Rather than go over my own feelings on the matter again, I'll instead use 
the words of a well respected sports journalist, Jeff Powell of the Daily 
Mail, seeing as his thoughts eloquently mirror my own....and virtually all 
UK football fans.... other than Hammers (burying heads in the sand, or 
blindly ignorant to the facts), and pikey scousers (love to hate all things 
Man UTD), when he wrote this for today's (Monday's) Daily Mail:

Titled:
DROP THIS HYPOCRISY, HAMMERS.

"Dumping on an agent may find favour with many members of the Premier 
League's constituency of greed, but it does not give West Ham so much as a 
grubby fingernail-hold on the moral high ground.
If, as we must assume, West Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they 
could borrow Carlos Tevez long enough for his goals to save them from 
relegation, it reflects even worse upon them when they try to grab the money 
and run behind the transparent skirts of authorities trying so desperately 
to rescue their own threadbare virtue. West Ham lied and cheated. They 
horse-traded gratefully with Joorabchian when he let them use Tevez and 
Javier Mascherano. If the agent got the money when Mascherano moved on to 
Liverpool, then West Ham appear to be reneging on an identical deal by 
claming the Tevez cash from Manchester United. Unless they do so, of course, 
they risk being docked points and relegated after all. So good faith is not 
high on their agenda.
Joorabchian may come across as a tricky Persian cat, who is said to be on 
the run from the Brazil judiciary, but that does not entitle West Ham to 
cheat him in business, the way they cheated our game.
Nor, by the way, is this any way to treat the player who saved them 
millions, not to mention their skins."

Well fucking said, that man!

Also, as regards your comments about top four clubs sauntering in and 
bullying 'little clubs' for their top players; BULLSHIT! Most of the time, 
the players want to make a move up in the world. In this case for example, 
do we hear Carlos Tevez resisting? Do we hear his cries of "leave me alone, 
Mr Ferguson! I'm happy here!"? No! He *WANTS* to come and play football 
here, he *WANTS* to have a crack at winning titles or European cups......put 
simply, he want to leave West Ham and join Manchester United. And West Ham, 
by way of saying thanks for the memories, Carlos, are stiffing him and his 
agent and standing in the way of his "dream move" (HIS WORDS).

I rest my (and Jeff Powell's) case.

"Billericay Hammer"  wrote in message 
news:f7gfdj$m5o$1@aioe.org...
> Well said Mel.
>

I think you have poo on your nose, mate.

"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:ypUmi.38634$_14.20383@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> "Mel"  wrote in message 
> news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
>> Slitheen,
>>
>> You really are an ignorant knob.
>>
>> It matters not what we paid for Tevez. If you care to look at the facts 
>> behind his transfer he was used as a....[SNIP the "blah blah, I'm a 
>> boring cunt" stuff]
>
> Rather than go over my own feelings on the matter again, I'll instead use 
> the words of a well respected sports journalist, Jeff Powell of the Daily 
> Mail, seeing as his thoughts eloquently mirror my own....and virtually all 
> UK football fans.... other than Hammers (burying heads in the sand, or 
> blindly ignorant to the facts), and pikey scousers (love to hate all 
> things Man UTD), when he wrote this for today's (Monday's) Daily Mail:
>
> Titled:
> DROP THIS HYPOCRISY, HAMMERS.
>
> "Dumping on an agent may find favour with many members of the Premier 
> League's constituency of greed, but it does not give West Ham so much as a 
> grubby fingernail-hold on the moral high ground.
> If, as we must assume, West Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they 
> could borrow Carlos Tevez long enough for his goals to save them from 
> relegation, it reflects even worse upon them when they try to grab the 
> money and run behind the transparent skirts of authorities trying so 
> desperately to rescue their own threadbare virtue. West Ham lied and 
> cheated. They horse-traded gratefully with Joorabchian when he let them 
> use Tevez and Javier Mascherano. If the agent got the money when 
> Mascherano moved on to Liverpool, then West Ham appear to be reneging on 
> an identical deal by claming the Tevez cash from Manchester United. Unless 
> they do so, of course, they risk being docked points and relegated after 
> all. So good faith is not high on their agenda.
> Joorabchian may come across as a tricky Persian cat, who is said to be on 
> the run from the Brazil judiciary, but that does not entitle West Ham to 
> cheat him in business, the way they cheated our game.
> Nor, by the way, is this any way to treat the player who saved them 
> millions, not to mention their skins."
>
> Well fucking said, that man!
>
> Also, as regards your comments about top four clubs sauntering in and 
> bullying 'little clubs' for their top players; BULLSHIT! Most of the time, 
> the players want to make a move up in the world. In this case for example, 
> do we hear Carlos Tevez resisting? Do we hear his cries of "leave me 
> alone, Mr Ferguson! I'm happy here!"? No! He *WANTS* to come and play 
> football here, he *WANTS* to have a crack at winning titles or European 
> cups......put simply, he want to leave West Ham and join Manchester 
> United. And West Ham, by way of saying thanks for the memories, Carlos, 
> are stiffing him and his agent and standing in the way of his "dream move" 
> (HIS WORDS).
>
> I rest my (and Jeff Powell's) case.
>
>

You got no case to rest you idiot. If you care to read a bias newspaper 
report on all things westham and believe all the crap written, then it 
speaks volumes about the type of person you are.

The Daily Mail FFS.

Oh! and by the way get your facts straight. Mascherano is only on loan to 
Liverpool, we also hold his registration until 2010.

Mel.

"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:hVTmi.38630$_14.25772@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> "Mel"  wrote in message 
> news:0NWdnWRt0fDBWwbbnZ2dnUVZ8qeknZ2d@bt.com...
>> He's probably one of those so called Man Utd supporters who has never 
>> been within 50 miles of Old Trafford.
>>
>
> How original! Aren't you clever? If you are *really* clever, get my 
> headers from any Usenet post, run the IP address through a 'who is' search 
> and you shall see this computer is in....MANCHESTER. Fuck me, if I fell 
> over I'd
Some people are more clever than you and been able to find your home address 
via your isp your address has been passsed on and someone will be paying you 
a visit to discuss matters further.

"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:ypUmi.38634$_14.20383@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> "Mel"  wrote in message 
> news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
<snip>
>
> Rather than go over my own feelings on the matter again, I'll instead use 
> the words of a well respected sports journalist, Jeff Powell of the Daily 
> Mail, seeing as his thoughts eloquently mirror my own.

It's fair enough for you to claim that Mr Powell's carping blatherings 
mirror your own thoughts

....and virtually all
> UK football fans.... other than Hammers (burying heads in the sand, or 
> blindly ignorant to the facts), and pikey scousers (love to hate all 
> things Man UTD),

but not for you to claim he, and you, speak for 'virtually all UK football 
fans'. He writes along lines laid down by his employers, and you, 
presumably, express your own opinion. The rest of the public may have their 
own views on various aspects of the matter, and I doubt you are in any 
position to know what the prevailing view might be, at any given time.

when he wrote this for today's (Monday's) Daily Mail:
>
> Titled:
> DROP THIS HYPOCRISY, HAMMERS.
>
> "Dumping on an agent may find favour with many members of the Premier 
> League's constituency of greed, but it does not give West Ham so much as a 
> grubby fingernail-hold on the moral high ground.
> If, as we must assume, West Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they 
> could borrow Carlos Tevez long enough for his goals to save them from 
> relegation, it reflects even worse upon them when they try to grab the 
> money and run behind the transparent skirts of authorities trying so 
> desperately to rescue their own threadbare virtue. West Ham lied and 
> cheated. They horse-traded gratefully with Joorabchian when he let them 
> use Tevez and Javier Mascherano. If the agent got the money when 
> Mascherano moved on to Liverpool, then West Ham appear to be reneging on 
> an identical deal by claming the Tevez cash from Manchester United. Unless 
> they do so, of course, they risk being docked points and relegated after 
> all. So good faith is not high on their agenda.
> Joorabchian may come across as a tricky Persian cat, who is said to be on 
> the run from the Brazil judiciary, but that does not entitle West Ham to 
> cheat him in business, the way they cheated our game.
> Nor, by the way, is this any way to treat the player who saved them 
> millions, not to mention their skins."
>

I'm afraid Powell's article is just typical of the Mail's consistent 
anti-West Ham bias. It is founded on a premise " we must assume that West 
Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they could borrow Carlos Tevez long 
enough for his goals to save them from  relegation" which is patent 
nonsense. The only 'deal' cut with Joorabchian was the original transfer to 
West Ham, at which time the club was not in danger of relegation, it was 
starting the new season on the back of a top half finish and a cup final 
appearance, and was in the EUFA Cup. No 'deal' was cut with Joorabchian 
following the disciplinary hearing, the third party clauses of the contract 
were unilaterally cancelled by West Ham. I'm sure you'll know what 
'unilaterally' means, even if Mr Powell does not.

As the premise on which Mr Powell bases his indignant tosh is incorrect, it 
follows that the opinions he expresses are ill founded.

When he says that West Ham 'cheated the game', I assume he is referring to 
the rule 18 debacle. If he had been paying attention, he would know that 
West Ham have already been disciplined for that infraction, and that the 
disciplinary board's decision has been confirmed by arbitration and high 
court as neither unreasonable nor perverse. If West Ham, acting on the 
advice of their legal advisors and with the approval of the Premier League, 
are indeed 'cheating' Joorbachian in business, as Powell asserts, then 
Joorbachian will have his remedies for that. On the other hand, if the 
clauses on which Joorbachian would have to rely are unenforceable in law, 
he'll just have to swallow it, and maybe take issue with whomever advised 
him on the terms of the contract.

Powell's remarks that West Ham are somehow ill treating Tevez are simply 
ludicrous. West Ham, in the persons of the chairman and manager, have 
accepted, with regret, that Tevez wishes to leave their employment, and 
indicated they are willing to discuss the terms on which they would be 
prepared to surrender his registration. They cannot seriously be expected to 
agree terms which might cost them dearly.

> Well fucking said, that man!

Cleverly written, perhaps, as one might expect from a hack of his 
experience, trying to step up into the shoes of the late Ian Wooldridge. But 
his conclusions and sentiments are unworthy of a man who has traded 
shamelessly for years on his acquaintance with the late Bobby Moore, yet who 
never misses an opportunity to put the boot into the club which Moore loved. 
It is almost as if he believes he is the club's self appointed conscience, 
and that West Ham have a duty to remain as he chooses to imagine they were 
in the 1960s, and that their attempts to compete in the modern world are 
some sort of betrayal. How annoyed he must be that West Ham have not yet 
been linked to the current corruption scandal. All that pent up righteous 
indignation denied a further outlet ...

>
> Also, as regards your comments about top four clubs sauntering in and 
> bullying 'little clubs' for their top players; BULLSHIT! Most of the time, 
> the players want to make a move up in the world. In this case for example, 
> do we hear Carlos Tevez resisting? Do we hear his cries of "leave me 
> alone, Mr Ferguson! I'm happy here!"? No! He *WANTS* to come and play 
> football here, he *WANTS* to have a crack at winning titles or European 
> cups......put simply, he want to leave West Ham and join Manchester 
> United. And West Ham, by way of saying thanks for the memories, Carlos, 
> are stiffing him and his agent and standing in the way of his "dream move" 
> (HIS WORDS).

A few weeks ago, before he was hawked around/tapped up, Tevez had made it 
clear he would be happy to stay at West Ham. Like he also said he was 
flattered and excited about alleged interest from Madrid, Milan, Liverpool 
and London clubs. Having been told by Joorbachian that West Ham no longer 
wanted him, because they were not exercising the purchase option in the 
original contract, then, naturally, he will have looked at what alternatives 
were on offer and chosen the one he felt was most attractive. West Ham are 
not standing in the way of his 'dream move', they are merely trying to 
ensure it is accomplished in a manner consistent with the legal advice 
obtained regarding the enforcability of aspects of the contract inherited 
from the previous board, and with the undertakings given to the Premier 
League following the disciplinary hearing.

I have to wonder just what Powell would have been writing had Joorbachian 
succeeded in his bid to buy West Ham last autumn. His paper has already been 
whingeing about 'foreign ownership' and the criteria for chairmen being 'fit 
and proper persons'. He would doubtless have had a field day.

>
> I rest my (and Jeff Powell's) case.
>
>

You (and he) are of course entitled to your opinions, and I am sure they 
will not change as long as you perceive any slight threat to the speedy 
addition of Tevez to the Man U squad, and as long as Powell's boss thinks it 
sells copies of the Daily Mail to wax indignant about anything West Ham.

Slitheen wrote:

> How original! Aren't you clever? If you are *really* clever, get my headers 
> from any Usenet post, run the IP address through a 'who is' search and you 
> shall see this computer is in....MANCHESTER. 

They look faked to me. The only mention of Manchester is from New York.

-- 
Howard Neil

BAC, "Right on the money mate".

By the way are you anything to do with the door and window company. Reason I 
ask is that a number of years ago BAC were shirt sponsors of WHU and I also 
spent a very long day in 1986 parachuting out of the BAC Company helicopter 
from a great height at various airfields around the south of the country.

Mel.


"BAC"  wrote in message 
news:1184665373.753.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
> news:ypUmi.38634$_14.20383@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> "Mel"  wrote in message 
>> news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
> <snip>
>>
>> Rather than go over my own feelings on the matter again, I'll instead use 
>> the words of a well respected sports journalist, Jeff Powell of the Daily 
>> Mail, seeing as his thoughts eloquently mirror my own.
>
> It's fair enough for you to claim that Mr Powell's carping blatherings 
> mirror your own thoughts
>
> ...and virtually all
>> UK football fans.... other than Hammers (burying heads in the sand, or 
>> blindly ignorant to the facts), and pikey scousers (love to hate all 
>> things Man UTD),
>
> but not for you to claim he, and you, speak for 'virtually all UK football 
> fans'. He writes along lines laid down by his employers, and you, 
> presumably, express your own opinion. The rest of the public may have 
> their own views on various aspects of the matter, and I doubt you are in 
> any position to know what the prevailing view might be, at any given time.
>
> when he wrote this for today's (Monday's) Daily Mail:
>>
>> Titled:
>> DROP THIS HYPOCRISY, HAMMERS.
>>
>> "Dumping on an agent may find favour with many members of the Premier 
>> League's constituency of greed, but it does not give West Ham so much as 
>> a grubby fingernail-hold on the moral high ground.
>> If, as we must assume, West Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they 
>> could borrow Carlos Tevez long enough for his goals to save them from 
>> relegation, it reflects even worse upon them when they try to grab the 
>> money and run behind the transparent skirts of authorities trying so 
>> desperately to rescue their own threadbare virtue. West Ham lied and 
>> cheated. They horse-traded gratefully with Joorabchian when he let them 
>> use Tevez and Javier Mascherano. If the agent got the money when 
>> Mascherano moved on to Liverpool, then West Ham appear to be reneging on 
>> an identical deal by claming the Tevez cash from Manchester United. 
>> Unless they do so, of course, they risk being docked points and relegated 
>> after all. So good faith is not high on their agenda.
>> Joorabchian may come across as a tricky Persian cat, who is said to be on 
>> the run from the Brazil judiciary, but that does not entitle West Ham to 
>> cheat him in business, the way they cheated our game.
>> Nor, by the way, is this any way to treat the player who saved them 
>> millions, not to mention their skins."
>>
>
> I'm afraid Powell's article is just typical of the Mail's consistent 
> anti-West Ham bias. It is founded on a premise " we must assume that West 
> Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they could borrow Carlos Tevez long 
> enough for his goals to save them from  relegation" which is patent 
> nonsense. The only 'deal' cut with Joorabchian was the original transfer 
> to West Ham, at which time the club was not in danger of relegation, it 
> was starting the new season on the back of a top half finish and a cup 
> final appearance, and was in the EUFA Cup. No 'deal' was cut with 
> Joorabchian following the disciplinary hearing, the third party clauses of 
> the contract were unilaterally cancelled by West Ham. I'm sure you'll know 
> what 'unilaterally' means, even if Mr Powell does not.
>
> As the premise on which Mr Powell bases his indignant tosh is incorrect, 
> it follows that the opinions he expresses are ill founded.
>
> When he says that West Ham 'cheated the game', I assume he is referring to 
> the rule 18 debacle. If he had been paying attention, he would know that 
> West Ham have already been disciplined for that infraction, and that the 
> disciplinary board's decision has been confirmed by arbitration and high 
> court as neither unreasonable nor perverse. If West Ham, acting on the 
> advice of their legal advisors and with the approval of the Premier 
> League, are indeed 'cheating' Joorbachian in business, as Powell asserts, 
> then Joorbachian will have his remedies for that. On the other hand, if 
> the clauses on which Joorbachian would have to rely are unenforceable in 
> law, he'll just have to swallow it, and maybe take issue with whomever 
> advised him on the terms of the contract.
>
> Powell's remarks that West Ham are somehow ill treating Tevez are simply 
> ludicrous. West Ham, in the persons of the chairman and manager, have 
> accepted, with regret, that Tevez wishes to leave their employment, and 
> indicated they are willing to discuss the terms on which they would be 
> prepared to surrender his registration. They cannot seriously be expected 
> to agree terms which might cost them dearly.
>
>> Well fucking said, that man!
>
> Cleverly written, perhaps, as one might expect from a hack of his 
> experience, trying to step up into the shoes of the late Ian Wooldridge. 
> But his conclusions and sentiments are unworthy of a man who has traded 
> shamelessly for years on his acquaintance with the late Bobby Moore, yet 
> who never misses an opportunity to put the boot into the club which Moore 
> loved. It is almost as if he believes he is the club's self appointed 
> conscience, and that West Ham have a duty to remain as he chooses to 
> imagine they were in the 1960s, and that their attempts to compete in the 
> modern world are some sort of betrayal. How annoyed he must be that West 
> Ham have not yet been linked to the current corruption scandal. All that 
> pent up righteous indignation denied a further outlet ...
>
>>
>> Also, as regards your comments about top four clubs sauntering in and 
>> bullying 'little clubs' for their top players; BULLSHIT! Most of the 
>> time, the players want to make a move up in the world. In this case for 
>> example, do we hear Carlos Tevez resisting? Do we hear his cries of 
>> "leave me alone, Mr Ferguson! I'm happy here!"? No! He *WANTS* to come 
>> and play football here, he *WANTS* to have a crack at winning titles or 
>> European cups......put simply, he want to leave West Ham and join 
>> Manchester United. And West Ham, by way of saying thanks for the 
>> memories, Carlos, are stiffing him and his agent and standing in the way 
>> of his "dream move" (HIS WORDS).
>
> A few weeks ago, before he was hawked around/tapped up, Tevez had made it 
> clear he would be happy to stay at West Ham. Like he also said he was 
> flattered and excited about alleged interest from Madrid, Milan, Liverpool 
> and London clubs. Having been told by Joorbachian that West Ham no longer 
> wanted him, because they were not exercising the purchase option in the 
> original contract, then, naturally, he will have looked at what 
> alternatives were on offer and chosen the one he felt was most attractive. 
> West Ham are not standing in the way of his 'dream move', they are merely 
> trying to ensure it is accomplished in a manner consistent with the legal 
> advice obtained regarding the enforcability of aspects of the contract 
> inherited from the previous board, and with the undertakings given to the 
> Premier League following the disciplinary hearing.
>
> I have to wonder just what Powell would have been writing had Joorbachian 
> succeeded in his bid to buy West Ham last autumn. His paper has already 
> been whingeing about 'foreign ownership' and the criteria for chairmen 
> being 'fit and proper persons'. He would doubtless have had a field day.
>
>>
>> I rest my (and Jeff Powell's) case.
>>
>>
>
> You (and he) are of course entitled to your opinions, and I am sure they 
> will not change as long as you perceive any slight threat to the speedy 
> addition of Tevez to the Man U squad, and as long as Powell's boss thinks 
> it sells copies of the Daily Mail to wax indignant about anything West 
> Ham.
>

"Mel"  wrote in message 
news:R8CdnU5UmfjEYQHbRVnytgA@bt.com...
> BAC, "Right on the money mate".

Thanks - I'm heartily sick of self righteous windbags whipping themselves up 
into a froth of indignation over the Tevez/Mascherano affair. I think Eggie 
and the current board have handled the difficult matter they inherited with 
considerable dignity, and deserve some support over it, not condemnation. I 
suppose Powell and Co wouldn't be happy unless the club voluntarily quit 
football altogether, and everyone connected with it commited ritual seppuku 
at the Boleyn, and blowing up the stadium as a funeral pyre. Even if they 
did that, they'd probably find themselves blamed for climate change.

>
> By the way are you anything to do with the door and window company. Reason 
> I ask is that a number of years ago BAC were shirt sponsors of WHU and I 
> also spent a very long day in 1986 parachuting out of the BAC Company 
> helicopter from a great height at various airfields around the south of 
> the country.
>

No, nothing like that, it's just I was often referred to by my initials, and 
the habit's stuck. It was flattering having my monicker on the shirts, 
though :-)

"pied piper"  wrote in message
news:qh_mi.27045$uR5.22812@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Slitheen"  wrote in message
> news:hVTmi.38630$_14.25772@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> "Mel"  wrote in message
>> news:0NWdnWRt0fDBWwbbnZ2dnUVZ8qeknZ2d@bt.com...
>>> He's probably one of those so called Man Utd supporters who has never
>>> been within 50 miles of Old Trafford.
>>>
>>
>> How original! Aren't you clever? If you are *really* clever, get my
>> headers from any Usenet post, run the IP address through a 'who is'
>> search and you shall see this computer is in....MANCHESTER. Fuck me, if I
>> fell over I'd
> Some people are more clever than you and been able to find your home
> address via your isp your address has been passsed on and someone will be
> paying you a visit to discuss matters further.
>



LOL, that really scares me. Must be at least 6 on the scared-o-meter. PMSL.


Actually, the most you can get from a 'Who Is' search is a locality/city, or 
more specifically the address of the nearest exchange that deals with their 
t'internet connection (NTL Baguley in my case....for example). I know this 
for a fact. There's also the fact that Poopex and certain other Usenet 
trolls would more than likely be residing at the bottom of the ship canal by 
now, considering the insults they've dished out over the years! That's 
further evidence that you're wrong. And thank god it's the case, as I don’t 
know about you, but I for one would worry for the safety of certain 
vulnerable people, like children or single females, who would be in grave 
danger if their Usenet obtained IP's gave away home addresses. Think about 
it!?



Now if someone had a personally registered website, that'd be different - in 
many cases you can trace those to the home address of the registered owner 
via Who Is.



So the most you’ve managed here, mate, is a swift report to your ISP for the 
thinly veiled threat you’ve just made. Expect your ISP to be in touch. Doh!

"Howard Neil"  wrote in message 
news:469ca0cd$0$1589$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Slitheen wrote:
>
>> How original! Aren't you clever? If you are *really* clever, get my 
>> headers from any Usenet post, run the IP address through a 'who is' 
>> search and you shall see this computer is in....MANCHESTER.
>
> They look faked to me. The only mention of Manchester is from New York.
>
> -- 
> Howard Neil


No it doesn't. Says NTL Baguley when I do it. I do sometimes use a 'mask', 
but it's switched off I think.

"BAC"  wrote in message 
news:1184695823.66045.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Mel"  wrote in message 
> news:R8CdnU5UmfjEYQHbRVnytgA@bt.com...
>> BAC, "Right on the money mate".
>
> Thanks - I'm heartily sick of self righteous windbags whipping themselves 
> up into a froth of indignation over the Tevez/Mascherano affair. I think 
> Eggie and the current board have handled the difficult matter they 
> inherited with considerable dignity, and deserve some support over it, not 
> condemnation. I suppose Powell and Co wouldn't be happy unless the club 
> voluntarily quit football altogether, and everyone connected with it 
> commited ritual seppuku at the Boleyn, and blowing up the stadium as a 
> funeral pyre. Even if they did that, they'd probably find themselves 
> blamed for climate change.
>
>>
>> By the way are you anything to do with the door and window company. 
>> Reason I ask is that a number of years ago BAC were shirt sponsors of WHU 
>> and I also spent a very long day in 1986 parachuting out of the BAC 
>> Company helicopter from a great height at various airfields around the 
>> south of the country.
>>
>
> No, nothing like that, it's just I was often referred to by my initials, 
> and the habit's stuck. It was flattering having my monicker on the shirts, 
> though :-)
>
Good job your moniker's not XL then, although my daughter refers to my 
middle age paunch as XL.

Mel.

"BAC"  wrote in message 
news:1184665373.753.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
> news:ypUmi.38634$_14.20383@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> "Mel"  wrote in message 
>> news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
> <snip>
>>
>> Rather than go over my own feelings on the matter again, I'll instead use 
>> the words of a well respected sports journalist, Jeff Powell of the Daily 
>> Mail, seeing as his thoughts eloquently mirror my own.
>
> It's fair enough for you to claim that Mr Powell's carping blatherings 
> mirror your own thoughts
>
> ...and virtually all
>> UK football fans.... other than Hammers (burying heads in the sand, or 
>> blindly ignorant to the facts), and pikey scousers (love to hate all 
>> things Man UTD),
>
> but not for you to claim he, and you, speak for 'virtually all UK football 
> fans'. He writes along lines laid down by his employers, and you, 
> presumably, express your own opinion. The rest of the public may have 
> their own views on various aspects of the matter, and I doubt you are in 
> any position to know what the prevailing view might be, at any given time.
>
> when he wrote this for today's (Monday's) Daily Mail:
>>
>> Titled:
>> DROP THIS HYPOCRISY, HAMMERS.
>>
>> "Dumping on an agent may find favour with many members of the Premier 
>> League's constituency of greed, but it does not give West Ham so much as 
>> a grubby fingernail-hold on the moral high ground.
>> If, as we must assume, West Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they 
>> could borrow Carlos Tevez long enough for his goals to save them from 
>> relegation, it reflects even worse upon them when they try to grab the 
>> money and run behind the transparent skirts of authorities trying so 
>> desperately to rescue their own threadbare virtue. West Ham lied and 
>> cheated. They horse-traded gratefully with Joorabchian when he let them 
>> use Tevez and Javier Mascherano. If the agent got the money when 
>> Mascherano moved on to Liverpool, then West Ham appear to be reneging on 
>> an identical deal by claming the Tevez cash from Manchester United. 
>> Unless they do so, of course, they risk being docked points and relegated 
>> after all. So good faith is not high on their agenda.
>> Joorabchian may come across as a tricky Persian cat, who is said to be on 
>> the run from the Brazil judiciary, but that does not entitle West Ham to 
>> cheat him in business, the way they cheated our game.
>> Nor, by the way, is this any way to treat the player who saved them 
>> millions, not to mention their skins."
>>
>
> I'm afraid Powell's article is just typical of the Mail's consistent 
> anti-West Ham bias. It is founded on a premise " we must assume that West 
> Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they could borrow Carlos Tevez long 
> enough for his goals to save them from  relegation" which is patent 
> nonsense. The only 'deal' cut with Joorabchian was the original transfer 
> to West Ham, at which time the club was not in danger of relegation, it 
> was starting the new season on the back of a top half finish and a cup 
> final appearance, and was in the EUFA Cup. No 'deal' was cut with 
> Joorabchian following the disciplinary hearing, the third party clauses of 
> the contract were unilaterally cancelled by West Ham. I'm sure you'll know 
> what 'unilaterally' means, even if Mr Powell does not.
>
> As the premise on which Mr Powell bases his indignant tosh is incorrect, 
> it follows that the opinions he expresses are ill founded.
>
> When he says that West Ham 'cheated the game', I assume he is referring to 
> the rule 18 debacle. If he had been paying attention, he would know that 
> West Ham have already been disciplined for that infraction, and that the 
> disciplinary board's decision has been confirmed by arbitration and high 
> court as neither unreasonable nor perverse. If West Ham, acting on the 
> advice of their legal advisors and with the approval of the Premier 
> League, are indeed 'cheating' Joorbachian in business, as Powell asserts, 
> then Joorbachian will have his remedies for that. On the other hand, if 
> the clauses on which Joorbachian would have to rely are unenforceable in 
> law, he'll just have to swallow it, and maybe take issue with whomever 
> advised him on the terms of the contract.
>
> Powell's remarks that West Ham are somehow ill treating Tevez are simply 
> ludicrous. West Ham, in the persons of the chairman and manager, have 
> accepted, with regret, that Tevez wishes to leave their employment, and 
> indicated they are willing to discuss the terms on which they would be 
> prepared to surrender his registration. They cannot seriously be expected 
> to agree terms which might cost them dearly.
>
>> Well fucking said, that man!
>
> Cleverly written, perhaps, as one might expect from a hack of his 
> experience, trying to step up into the shoes of the late Ian Wooldridge. 
> But his conclusions and sentiments are unworthy of a man who has traded 
> shamelessly for years on his acquaintance with the late Bobby Moore, yet 
> who never misses an opportunity to put the boot into the club which Moore 
> loved. It is almost as if he believes he is the club's self appointed 
> conscience, and that West Ham have a duty to remain as he chooses to 
> imagine they were in the 1960s, and that their attempts to compete in the 
> modern world are some sort of betrayal. How annoyed he must be that West 
> Ham have not yet been linked to the current corruption scandal. All that 
> pent up righteous indignation denied a further outlet ...
>
>>
>> Also, as regards your comments about top four clubs sauntering in and 
>> bullying 'little clubs' for their top players; BULLSHIT! Most of the 
>> time, the players want to make a move up in the world. In this case for 
>> example, do we hear Carlos Tevez resisting? Do we hear his cries of 
>> "leave me alone, Mr Ferguson! I'm happy here!"? No! He *WANTS* to come 
>> and play football here, he *WANTS* to have a crack at winning titles or 
>> European cups......put simply, he want to leave West Ham and join 
>> Manchester United. And West Ham, by way of saying thanks for the 
>> memories, Carlos, are stiffing him and his agent and standing in the way 
>> of his "dream move" (HIS WORDS).
>
> A few weeks ago, before he was hawked around/tapped up, Tevez had made it 
> clear he would be happy to stay at West Ham. Like he also said he was 
> flattered and excited about alleged interest from Madrid, Milan, Liverpool 
> and London clubs. Having been told by Joorbachian that West Ham no longer 
> wanted him, because they were not exercising the purchase option in the 
> original contract, then, naturally, he will have looked at what 
> alternatives were on offer and chosen the one he felt was most attractive. 
> West Ham are not standing in the way of his 'dream move', they are merely 
> trying to ensure it is accomplished in a manner consistent with the legal 
> advice obtained regarding the enforcability of aspects of the contract 
> inherited from the previous board, and with the undertakings given to the 
> Premier League following the disciplinary hearing.
>
> I have to wonder just what Powell would have been writing had Joorbachian 
> succeeded in his bid to buy West Ham last autumn. His paper has already 
> been whingeing about 'foreign ownership' and the criteria for chairmen 
> being 'fit and proper persons'. He would doubtless have had a field day.

Well I and Mr Powell are both glad he never bought you out. Having had it 
done to us, I wouldn't wish it on another club. Although pretty soon, we'll 
all have our arses owned. Hostile takeovers cannot be prevented.

>
>>
>> I rest my (and Jeff Powell's) case.
>>
>>
>
> You (and he) are of course entitled to your opinions, and I am sure they 
> will not change as long as you perceive any slight threat to the speedy 
> addition of Tevez to the Man U squad, and as long as Powell's boss thinks 
> it sells copies of the Daily Mail to wax indignant about anything West 
> Ham.
>

But they're right. Why take insult from a paper having a pop at your board's 
actions? As wrong as your board have been, and only Hammer fans are speaking 
in their defence by the way, the fans had nothing to do with it. The board 
have knowingly got into this mess, not the fans.

 But you should really be in the Championship now. Every other breach of 
player ownership has resulted in a docking of points.....the Premier League 
messed up, and you're being protected by them. Could be very profitable, so 
I guess that's why you don't see a problem with West Ham cheating the rules 
of the game? :/

"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:h29ni.27379$vA3.302@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "BAC"  wrote in message 
> news:1184665373.753.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>
>> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
>> news:ypUmi.38634$_14.20383@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>> "Mel"  wrote in message 
>>> news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Rather than go over my own feelings on the matter again, I'll instead 
>>> use the words of a well respected sports journalist, Jeff Powell of the 
>>> Daily Mail, seeing as his thoughts eloquently mirror my own.
>>
>> It's fair enough for you to claim that Mr Powell's carping blatherings 
>> mirror your own thoughts
>>
>> ...and virtually all
>>> UK football fans.... other than Hammers (burying heads in the sand, or 
>>> blindly ignorant to the facts), and pikey scousers (love to hate all 
>>> things Man UTD),
>>
>> but not for you to claim he, and you, speak for 'virtually all UK 
>> football fans'. He writes along lines laid down by his employers, and 
>> you, presumably, express your own opinion. The rest of the public may 
>> have their own views on various aspects of the matter, and I doubt you 
>> are in any position to know what the prevailing view might be, at any 
>> given time.
>>
>> when he wrote this for today's (Monday's) Daily Mail:
>>>
>>> Titled:
>>> DROP THIS HYPOCRISY, HAMMERS.
>>>
>>> "Dumping on an agent may find favour with many members of the Premier 
>>> League's constituency of greed, but it does not give West Ham so much as 
>>> a grubby fingernail-hold on the moral high ground.
>>> If, as we must assume, West Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they 
>>> could borrow Carlos Tevez long enough for his goals to save them from 
>>> relegation, it reflects even worse upon them when they try to grab the 
>>> money and run behind the transparent skirts of authorities trying so 
>>> desperately to rescue their own threadbare virtue. West Ham lied and 
>>> cheated. They horse-traded gratefully with Joorabchian when he let them 
>>> use Tevez and Javier Mascherano. If the agent got the money when 
>>> Mascherano moved on to Liverpool, then West Ham appear to be reneging on 
>>> an identical deal by claming the Tevez cash from Manchester United. 
>>> Unless they do so, of course, they risk being docked points and 
>>> relegated after all. So good faith is not high on their agenda.
>>> Joorabchian may come across as a tricky Persian cat, who is said to be 
>>> on the run from the Brazil judiciary, but that does not entitle West Ham 
>>> to cheat him in business, the way they cheated our game.
>>> Nor, by the way, is this any way to treat the player who saved them 
>>> millions, not to mention their skins."
>>>
>>
>> I'm afraid Powell's article is just typical of the Mail's consistent 
>> anti-West Ham bias. It is founded on a premise " we must assume that West 
>> Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they could borrow Carlos Tevez 
>> long enough for his goals to save them from  relegation" which is patent 
>> nonsense. The only 'deal' cut with Joorabchian was the original transfer 
>> to West Ham, at which time the club was not in danger of relegation, it 
>> was starting the new season on the back of a top half finish and a cup 
>> final appearance, and was in the EUFA Cup. No 'deal' was cut with 
>> Joorabchian following the disciplinary hearing, the third party clauses 
>> of the contract were unilaterally cancelled by West Ham. I'm sure you'll 
>> know what 'unilaterally' means, even if Mr Powell does not.
>>
>> As the premise on which Mr Powell bases his indignant tosh is incorrect, 
>> it follows that the opinions he expresses are ill founded.
>>
>> When he says that West Ham 'cheated the game', I assume he is referring 
>> to the rule 18 debacle. If he had been paying attention, he would know 
>> that West Ham have already been disciplined for that infraction, and that 
>> the disciplinary board's decision has been confirmed by arbitration and 
>> high court as neither unreasonable nor perverse. If West Ham, acting on 
>> the advice of their legal advisors and with the approval of the Premier 
>> League, are indeed 'cheating' Joorbachian in business, as Powell asserts, 
>> then Joorbachian will have his remedies for that. On the other hand, if 
>> the clauses on which Joorbachian would have to rely are unenforceable in 
>> law, he'll just have to swallow it, and maybe take issue with whomever 
>> advised him on the terms of the contract.
>>
>> Powell's remarks that West Ham are somehow ill treating Tevez are simply 
>> ludicrous. West Ham, in the persons of the chairman and manager, have 
>> accepted, with regret, that Tevez wishes to leave their employment, and 
>> indicated they are willing to discuss the terms on which they would be 
>> prepared to surrender his registration. They cannot seriously be expected 
>> to agree terms which might cost them dearly.
>>
>>> Well fucking said, that man!
>>
>> Cleverly written, perhaps, as one might expect from a hack of his 
>> experience, trying to step up into the shoes of the late Ian Wooldridge. 
>> But his conclusions and sentiments are unworthy of a man who has traded 
>> shamelessly for years on his acquaintance with the late Bobby Moore, yet 
>> who never misses an opportunity to put the boot into the club which Moore 
>> loved. It is almost as if he believes he is the club's self appointed 
>> conscience, and that West Ham have a duty to remain as he chooses to 
>> imagine they were in the 1960s, and that their attempts to compete in the 
>> modern world are some sort of betrayal. How annoyed he must be that West 
>> Ham have not yet been linked to the current corruption scandal. All that 
>> pent up righteous indignation denied a further outlet ...
>>
>>>
>>> Also, as regards your comments about top four clubs sauntering in and 
>>> bullying 'little clubs' for their top players; BULLSHIT! Most of the 
>>> time, the players want to make a move up in the world. In this case for 
>>> example, do we hear Carlos Tevez resisting? Do we hear his cries of 
>>> "leave me alone, Mr Ferguson! I'm happy here!"? No! He *WANTS* to come 
>>> and play football here, he *WANTS* to have a crack at winning titles or 
>>> European cups......put simply, he want to leave West Ham and join 
>>> Manchester United. And West Ham, by way of saying thanks for the 
>>> memories, Carlos, are stiffing him and his agent and standing in the way 
>>> of his "dream move" (HIS WORDS).
>>
>> A few weeks ago, before he was hawked around/tapped up, Tevez had made it 
>> clear he would be happy to stay at West Ham. Like he also said he was 
>> flattered and excited about alleged interest from Madrid, Milan, 
>> Liverpool and London clubs. Having been told by Joorbachian that West Ham 
>> no longer wanted him, because they were not exercising the purchase 
>> option in the original contract, then, naturally, he will have looked at 
>> what alternatives were on offer and chosen the one he felt was most 
>> attractive. West Ham are not standing in the way of his 'dream move', 
>> they are merely trying to ensure it is accomplished in a manner 
>> consistent with the legal advice obtained regarding the enforcability of 
>> aspects of the contract inherited from the previous board, and with the 
>> undertakings given to the Premier League following the disciplinary 
>> hearing.
>>
>> I have to wonder just what Powell would have been writing had Joorbachian 
>> succeeded in his bid to buy West Ham last autumn. His paper has already 
>> been whingeing about 'foreign ownership' and the criteria for chairmen 
>> being 'fit and proper persons'. He would doubtless have had a field day.
>
> Well I and Mr Powell are both glad he never bought you out. Having had it 
> done to us, I wouldn't wish it on another club. Although pretty soon, 
> we'll all have our arses owned. Hostile takeovers cannot be prevented.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I rest my (and Jeff Powell's) case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You (and he) are of course entitled to your opinions, and I am sure they 
>> will not change as long as you perceive any slight threat to the speedy 
>> addition of Tevez to the Man U squad, and as long as Powell's boss thinks 
>> it sells copies of the Daily Mail to wax indignant about anything West 
>> Ham.
>>
>
> But they're right. Why take insult from a paper having a pop at your 
> board's actions? As wrong as your board have been, and only Hammer fans 
> are speaking in their defence by the way, the fans had nothing to do with 
> it. The board have knowingly got into this mess, not the fans.
>
> But you should really be in the Championship now. Every other breach of 
> player ownership has resulted in a docking of points.....the Premier 
> League messed up, and you're being protected by them. Could be very 
> profitable, so I guess that's why you don't see a problem with West Ham 
> cheating the rules of the game? :/
>

So dock us points then.


2 is the going rate and if you doubt me do some research on the subject. A 
two point deduction still keeps us up.

Ta Ta!


Mel.

"BAC"  wrote in message 
news:1184665373.753.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
> news:ypUmi.38634$_14.20383@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> "Mel"  wrote in message 
>> news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
> <snip>
>>
>> Rather than go over my own feelings on the matter again, I'll instead use 
>> the words of a well respected sports journalist, Jeff Powell of the Daily 
>> Mail, seeing as his thoughts eloquently mirror my own.
>
> It's fair enough for you to claim that Mr Powell's carping blatherings 
> mirror your own thoughts
>
> ...and virtually all
>> UK football fans.... other than Hammers (burying heads in the sand, or 
>> blindly ignorant to the facts), and pikey scousers (love to hate all 
>> things Man UTD),
>
> but not for you to claim he, and you, speak for 'virtually all UK football 
> fans'. He writes along lines laid down by his employers, and you, 
> presumably, express your own opinion. The rest of the public may have 
> their own views on various aspects of the matter, and I doubt you are in 
> any position to know what the prevailing view might be, at any given time.
>
> when he wrote this for today's (Monday's) Daily Mail:
>>
>> Titled:
>> DROP THIS HYPOCRISY, HAMMERS.
>>
>> "Dumping on an agent may find favour with many members of the Premier 
>> League's constituency of greed, but it does not give West Ham so much as 
>> a grubby fingernail-hold on the moral high ground.
>> If, as we must assume, West Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they 
>> could borrow Carlos Tevez long enough for his goals to save them from 
>> relegation, it reflects even worse upon them when they try to grab the 
>> money and run behind the transparent skirts of authorities trying so 
>> desperately to rescue their own threadbare virtue. West Ham lied and 
>> cheated. They horse-traded gratefully with Joorabchian when he let them 
>> use Tevez and Javier Mascherano. If the agent got the money when 
>> Mascherano moved on to Liverpool, then West Ham appear to be reneging on 
>> an identical deal by claming the Tevez cash from Manchester United. 
>> Unless they do so, of course, they risk being docked points and relegated 
>> after all. So good faith is not high on their agenda.
>> Joorabchian may come across as a tricky Persian cat, who is said to be on 
>> the run from the Brazil judiciary, but that does not entitle West Ham to 
>> cheat him in business, the way they cheated our game.
>> Nor, by the way, is this any way to treat the player who saved them 
>> millions, not to mention their skins."
>>
>
> I'm afraid Powell's article is just typical of the Mail's consistent 
> anti-West Ham bias. It is founded on a premise " we must assume that West 
> Ham cut a deal with Kia Joorabchian so they could borrow Carlos Tevez long 
> enough for his goals to save them from  relegation" which is patent 
> nonsense. The only 'deal' cut with Joorabchian was the original transfer 
> to West Ham, at which time the club was not in danger of relegation, it 
> was starting the new season on the back of a top half finish and a cup 
> final appearance, and was in the EUFA Cup. No 'deal' was cut with 
> Joorabchian following the disciplinary hearing, the third party clauses of 
> the contract were unilaterally cancelled by West Ham. I'm sure you'll know 
> what 'unilaterally' means, even if Mr Powell does not.
>
> As the premise on which Mr Powell bases his indignant tosh is incorrect, 
> it follows that the opinions he expresses are ill founded.
>
> When he says that West Ham 'cheated the game', I assume he is referring to 
> the rule 18 debacle. If he had been paying attention, he would know that 
> West Ham have already been disciplined for that infraction, and that the 
> disciplinary board's decision has been confirmed by arbitration and high 
> court as neither unreasonable nor perverse. If West Ham, acting on the 
> advice of their legal advisors and with the approval of the Premier 
> League, are indeed 'cheating' Joorbachian in business, as Powell asserts, 
> then Joorbachian will have his remedies for that. On the other hand, if 
> the clauses on which Joorbachian would have to rely are unenforceable in 
> law, he'll just have to swallow it, and maybe take issue with whomever 
> advised him on the terms of the contract.
>
> Powell's remarks that West Ham are somehow ill treating Tevez are simply 
> ludicrous. West Ham, in the persons of the chairman and manager, have 
> accepted, with regret, that Tevez wishes to leave their employment, and 
> indicated they are willing to discuss the terms on which they would be 
> prepared to surrender his registration. They cannot seriously be expected 
> to agree terms which might cost them dearly.
>
>> Well fucking said, that man!
>
> Cleverly written, perhaps, as one might expect from a hack of his 
> experience, trying to step up into the shoes of the late Ian Wooldridge. 
> But his conclusions and sentiments are unworthy of a man who has traded 
> shamelessly for years on his acquaintance with the late Bobby Moore, yet 
> who never misses an opportunity to put the boot into the club which Moore 
> loved. It is almost as if he believes he is the club's self appointed 
> conscience, and that West Ham have a duty to remain as he chooses to 
> imagine they were in the 1960s, and that their attempts to compete in the 
> modern world are some sort of betrayal. How annoyed he must be that West 
> Ham have not yet been linked to the current corruption scandal. All that 
> pent up righteous indignation denied a further outlet ...
>
>>
>> Also, as regards your comments about top four clubs sauntering in and 
>> bullying 'little clubs' for their top players; BULLSHIT! Most of the 
>> time, the players want to make a move up in the world. In this case for 
>> example, do we hear Carlos Tevez resisting? Do we hear his cries of 
>> "leave me alone, Mr Ferguson! I'm happy here!"? No! He *WANTS* to come 
>> and play football here, he *WANTS* to have a crack at winning titles or 
>> European cups......put simply, he want to leave West Ham and join 
>> Manchester United. And West Ham, by way of saying thanks for the 
>> memories, Carlos, are stiffing him and his agent and standing in the way 
>> of his "dream move" (HIS WORDS).
>
> A few weeks ago, before he was hawked around/tapped up, Tevez had made it 
> clear he would be happy to stay at West Ham.

He has said a lot of things. Actions speak louder than words though. Like 
when he was fined for turning up to work with Man UTD shirt on. I think that 
speaks volumes about his long-term interests. As far as what he said about 
West Ham, that is your standard common courtesy you hear coming from all 
players. "This is a great club, top manager....blah blah". He only ended up 
their as all the top clubs were too smart to touch the dubious deal that was 
offered. He, like all players of his ability in Europe, was eying up 
Champions League football and domestic success. I doubt he really wanted to 
continue his career at WH.....but don't let me burst your bubble.

Like he also said he was
> flattered and excited about alleged interest from Madrid, Milan, Liverpool 
> and London clubs. Having been told by Joorbachian that West Ham no longer 
> wanted him, because they were not exercising the purchase option in the 
> original contract, then, naturally, he will have looked at what 
> alternatives were on offer and chosen the one he felt was most attractive. 
> West Ham are not standing in the way of his 'dream move', they are merely 
> trying to ensure it is accomplished in a manner consistent with the legal 
> advice obtained regarding the enforcability of aspects of the contract 
> inherited from the previous board, and with the undertakings given to the 
> Premier League following the disciplinary hearing.
>
> I have to wonder just what Powell would have been writing had Joorbachian 
> succeeded in his bid to buy West Ham last autumn. His paper has already 
> been whingeing about 'foreign ownership' and the criteria for chairmen 
> being 'fit and proper persons'. He would doubtless have had a field day.

Well I'm certainly glad Joorabchian never got his chance to buy the club, 
having had it done to us, I wouldn't wish it on another club. Although 
pretty soon, we'll all have our arses owned. Hostile takeovers cannot be 
prevented.

But anyway, Mr Powell clearly says that KJ is a dodgy geezer, but that West 
Ham jumped into his bed knowing that. Only in light of the trouble it has 
caused them have they distanced themselves from this oh so dubious 
character. When in reality, West Ham's part in this has been no less 
dubious. And despite your claim that this is a vendetta that only the Mail 
have with you, or that it doesn't mirror the opinions of other newspapers or 
many, many football fans - I have found that not to be the case. My work 
colleague's for example; a pretty broad demographic of people....supporters 
of many clubs, wide range of ages etc, I have not heard one speak up in 
defence of the perfectly innocent Hammers that you describe. It is clearly 
bias on your part. I have no such axe to grind.

>
>>
>> I rest my (and Jeff Powell's) case.
>>
>>
>
> You (and he) are of course entitled to your opinions, and I am sure they 
> will not change as long as you perceive any slight threat to the speedy 
> addition of Tevez to the Man U squad, and as long as Powell's boss thinks 
> it sells copies of the Daily Mail to wax indignant about anything West 
> Ham.
>


You could say the same about any newspaper and any story. This is not *just* 
a story to sell newspapers, this was a small column and for me it pretty 
much sums the situation up well, and is clearly his own view. To doubt that 
I would have to doubt all journalists full stop.

And despite all, I would say the same even if we weren't after Tevez - and I 
*was* saying the same before I knew we were after him. When you got a petty 
fine and a slap on the wrist, it rang alarm bells in every right thinking 
fan of sport. Seemingly only Hammers are immune to this alarm. Strange that. 
Wonder why? :/

Regards. :)

"Mel"  wrote in message 
news:R8CdnU5UmfjEYQHbRVnytgA@bt.com...
> BAC, "Right on the money mate".
>

Who are you quoting, out of interest? :/

"Howard Neil"  wrote in message 
news:469ca0cd$0$1589$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Slitheen wrote:
>
>> How original! Aren't you clever? If you are *really* clever, get my 
>> headers from any Usenet post, run the IP address through a 'who is' 
>> search and you shall see this computer is in....MANCHESTER.
>
> They look faked to me. The only mention of Manchester is from New York.
>



Depends on the actual IP search site you use. When I say 'Who Is', it is my 
broad description of all similar sites. My IP address on most will tell you 
that my exchange is via NTL Baguley - Baguley is in, and serves, only 
Manchester. Manchester U.K that is. I am certainly not from New York! One I 
just tried said City: Amsterdam......f'ing hell, I wish! LOL :D

"pied piper"  wrote in message 
news:xxEmi.28159$%Z3.23867@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> arsewipe piss off back to ur own group

Say please and I will. I'm bored now anyway.

BTW, do rats follow you everywhere you go? :/

-- 
Slitheen.
Manchester United - BIG Northern club.

"pied piper"  wrote in message 
news:qh_mi.27045$uR5.22812@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
> news:hVTmi.38630$_14.25772@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> "Mel"  wrote in message 
>> news:0NWdnWRt0fDBWwbbnZ2dnUVZ8qeknZ2d@bt.com...
>>> He's probably one of those so called Man Utd supporters who has never 
>>> been within 50 miles of Old Trafford.
>>>
>>
>> How original! Aren't you clever? If you are *really* clever, get my 
>> headers from any Usenet post, run the IP address through a 'who is' 
>> search and you shall see this computer is in....MANCHESTER. Fuck me, if I 
>> fell over I'd
> Some people are more clever than you and been able to find your home 
> address via your isp your address has been passsed on and someone will be 
> paying you a visit to discuss matters further.
>


A representative from a further education establishment should be in touch 
with you to discuss your terrible lack of punctuation, and the glaring 
grammatical errors in your posts.

It's never too late to learn, you know!

Slitheen wrote:
> "Howard Neil"  wrote in message 
> news:469ca0cd$0$1589$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> Slitheen wrote:
>>
>>> How original! Aren't you clever? If you are *really* clever, get my 
>>> headers from any Usenet post, run the IP address through a 'who is' 
>>> search and you shall see this computer is in....MANCHESTER.
>> They look faked to me. The only mention of Manchester is from New York.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the actual IP search site you use. When I say 'Who Is', it is my 
> broad description of all similar sites. My IP address on most will tell you 
> that my exchange is via NTL Baguley - Baguley is in, and serves, only 
> Manchester. Manchester U.K that is. I am certainly not from New York! One I 
> just tried said City: Amsterdam......f'ing hell, I wish! LOL :D 
> 
> 

NeoTrace. The final node (14 for me) does give bagu.cable.ntl.com which 
I would never have guessed at Baguley if you hadn't told me. The one 
that made me suspicious is (again, for me) node 9 which states it is 
manchesteruk1.level3.net but actually has a physical location of 
Broomfield, United States, which is just north east of New York. Very 
strange.

-- 
Howard Neil

"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:h29ni.27379$vA3.302@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "BAC"  wrote in message 
> news:1184665373.753.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>
<snip>

>>>
>>> I rest my (and Jeff Powell's) case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You (and he) are of course entitled to your opinions, and I am sure they 
>> will not change as long as you perceive any slight threat to the speedy 
>> addition of Tevez to the Man U squad, and as long as Powell's boss thinks 
>> it sells copies of the Daily Mail to wax indignant about anything West 
>> Ham.
>>
>
> But they're right.

Obviously, you believe your opinions to be correct, but that doesn't make 
them so. Powell's 'opinions' are merely expressed for effect, I'm afraid.

Why take insult from a paper having a pop at your board's
> actions?

In the interests of fairness, because I don't accept that the current board 
have done anything to merit such condemnation.

As wrong as your board have been, and only Hammer fans are speaking
> in their defence by the way,

That isn't true. I know fans of other clubs who agree that the current West 
Ham board have done nothing wrong in this matter, and that the errors of the 
previous board were correctly dealt with by the disciplinary panel.

the fans had nothing to do with it. The board
> have knowingly got into this mess, not the fans.

That depends what you mean by 'this mess'. The current board did not sign 
Tevez and Mascherano, and their attempts to deal with the problems which 
arose with the Premier League have followed legal advice and have the 
Premier League's approval. I don't really see what more they could or should 
have done.

If by 'mess' you mean the transfer of Tevez's registration to Manchester 
United or whichever other club they might agree terms with, they merely seem 
to be sticking to the Premier League's current guidance on the 
interpretation of the rules in the matter. Compliance with Premier League 
rules is, obviously, especially important to the current board, as they seek 
to repair the damage done to their relationship with the game's 
administrators by their predecessors' infractions.

>
> But you should really be in the Championship now. Every other breach of 
> player ownership has resulted in a docking of points.....the Premier 
> League messed up, and you're being protected by them.

No, West Ham shouldn't be in the Championship. The Premier League does not 
have a set scale of punishments for various infringements (perhaps it should 
do, as in rugby), and there was no precedent punishment for this particular 
type of infringement. Hence, the independent disciplinary tribunal was free 
to decide on whatever penalty it decided was appropriate and proportionate, 
which it did. West Ham, who had pleaded guilty, accepted the punishment, and 
did not appeal the record fine. I don't know why you believe the Premier 
League 'messed up' in accepting the decision of the independent disciplinary 
tribunal set up in accordance with its rules. If the PL had failed to follow 
correct procedures, and/or if the independent tribunal had acted in a 
perverse or illogical manner in arriving at its decision, then either the 
arbitration panel or the High Court would have said so and very probably 
have ordered fresh proceedings. But they did not. Sheffield United's actions 
in pursuing this matter have exposed the Premier League's actions to 
detailed judicial scrutiny, so it is disappointing that the conspiracy 
theorists still refuse to accept the findings.

Could be very profitable, so
> I guess that's why you don't see a problem with West Ham cheating the 
> rules of the game? :/
>

I'd much rather West Ham hadn't broken the rules on third party influence, 
nor tried to cover up the error in the first place, but, you're right, I 
don't see a problem with them pleading guilty on both counts at the 
independent disciplinary tribunal and accepting the punishment handed down 
by that tribunal.

What other 'rules of the game' are they supposed to have broken in this 
matter?

"Slitheen"  wrote in message 
news:ts9ni.25563$_l6.6704@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> "BAC"  wrote in message 
> news:1184665373.753.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>
>> "Slitheen"  wrote in message 
>> news:ypUmi.38634$_14.20383@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>> "Mel"  wrote in message 
>>> news:cKGdnZQcm8EQXQbbRVnytQA@bt.com...
<snip>
>>
>> A few weeks ago, before he was hawked around/tapped up, Tevez had made it 
>> clear he would be happy to stay at West Ham.
>
> He has said a lot of things. Actions speak louder than words though. Like 
> when he was fined for turning up to work with Man UTD shirt on.

From what I read, he was fined by one of his previous clubs, with which he 
was 'enjoying' a tumultuous relationship, for making a point by turning up 
for practice in a shirt that wasn't his club's - the fact it happened to be 
a Man U shirt being an irrelevance. I doubt very much whether he sat for 
hours deciding which 'foreign' shirt he should wear to further piss off his 
employers, carefully sorting through the kit of every club in the world, no, 
he probably chose the first shirt which came to hand which fitted and which 
would serve the purpose, i.e. annoying his boss, not sending a job 
application to Manchester United.

I think that
> speaks volumes about his long-term interests. As far as what he said about 
> West Ham, that is your standard common courtesy you hear coming from all 
> players. "This is a great club, top manager....blah blah". He only ended 
> up their as all the top clubs were too smart to touch the dubious deal 
> that was offered. He, like all players of his ability in Europe, was eying 
> up Champions League football and domestic success. I doubt he really 
> wanted to continue his career at WH.....but don't let me burst your 
> bubble.

How cynical to claim that all players' remarks on joining new clubs are 
insincere. And inconsistent with your acceptance at face value of his 
describing his proposed move to Man Utd as his 'dream move'. Further, he 
said he would have been happy to stay at West Ham after the end of last 
season, so it wasn't the usual 'lifelong supporter of the new club' rubbish.

<snip>
>>
>> I have to wonder just what Powell would have been writing had Joorbachian 
>> succeeded in his bid to buy West Ham last autumn. His paper has already 
>> been whingeing about 'foreign ownership' and the criteria for chairmen 
>> being 'fit and proper persons'. He would doubtless have had a field day.
>
> Well I'm certainly glad Joorabchian never got his chance to buy the club, 
> having had it done to us, I wouldn't wish it on another club. Although 
> pretty soon, we'll all have our arses owned. Hostile takeovers cannot be 
> prevented.

West Ham have, thankfully, been taken ove