Hold your celebrations!!!
-
The Premier League have contacted Manchester United and Everton to find out exactly why Tim Howard did not play against United last week.
The American goalkeeper joined Everton on a season-long loan deal from United last summer which became a permanent deal in February.
Premier League rules on loan deals prevent players from playing against their host club but, once the Howard deal became permanent, he was eligible to play against United on April 28.
The Premier League would not have sanctioned the permanent transfer if United had requested a clause preventing Howard from playing against them.
But before the match Everton boss David Moyes appeared to suggest that there had been a verbal agreement between the clubs over Howard's omission.
Moyes said: "While Tim Howard was on loan he would not have been able to play against his parent club, United. But although we have now signed him ourselves, United wanted the loan clause to remain in operation.
"It was partly the reason we were able to tie up the deal for next season as early as we did, we have abided by their wishes."
Moyes recalled reserve keeper Iain Turner from his loan to Sheffield Wednesday and, with Everton leading 2-0, the youngster's blunder gifted United the goal which got them back into a match which they went on to win 4-2.
Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson told the News of the World: "As Howard's is a permanent transfer there is no reason why he could not have played against Manchester United.
"Had such a clause been included in the transfer we would not have allowed it - it would have been a clear case of third-party interference.
"We certainly have no record of an agreement between Everton and United that Howard could not play on April 8."
Reports on Sunday claimed that the clubs could be punished - even docked points - if the Premier League proved there was an agreement between the clubs for Howard to not play.
The more likely outcome is that the Premier League will seek to tighten up the rules surrounding loan deals between Premier League clubs.
The Premier League are now waiting for a response from Everton and United. -
Premier League clear clubs over Howard
The Premier League are satisfied that neither Manchester United nor Everton broke any rules over the transfer of Tim Howard.
The League contacted the clubs to find out exactly why the American goalkeeper did not play in the Premiership match between them at Goodison Park last week.
Howard joined Everton on a season-long loan deal from United last summer, which became a permanent deal in February.
Premier League rules on loan deals prevent players from playing against their host club but, once the Howard deal became permanent, he was eligible to play against United on April 28.
The Premier League would not have sanctioned the permanent transfer if United had requested a clause preventing Howard from playing against them.
But before the match Everton boss David Moyes appeared to suggest there had been a verbal agreement between the clubs over Howard's omission.
However, a statement from the Premier League confirmed: 'At the time of Tim Howard's permanent transfer from Manchester United to Everton, the Premier League ensured there were no agreements in place that contravened our rules.
'As a result of recent comments we had sought further clarification from both clubs and are satisfied that it remains the case that there were no agreements that breached any of our rules.
'Everton were free to play Tim Howard in their fixture against Manchester United had they so wished - and this has been confirmed by both clubs.'
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=428078&cc=4716 -
yeah its been cleared up.
-
Nice and prompt Reply
-
-
TS must be a chelscum fanOriginally posted by jianfish9:Nice and prompt Reply -
Originally posted by Dead_Man_Inc:
why didn't they do so then since they are free to it is their first team keeper and i see no reason why they need to drop tim howard since he is free to play against united
[b]Premier League clear clubs over Howard
The Premier League are satisfied that neither Manchester United nor Everton broke any rules over the transfer of Tim Howard.
The League contacted the clubs to find out exactly why the American goalkeeper did not play in the Premiership match between them at Goodison Park last week.
Howard joined Everton on a season-long loan deal from United last summer, which became a permanent deal in February.
Premier League rules on loan deals prevent players from playing against their host club but, once the Howard deal became permanent, he was eligible to play against United on April 28.
The Premier League would not have sanctioned the permanent transfer if United had requested a clause preventing Howard from playing against them.
But before the match Everton boss David Moyes appeared to suggest there had been a verbal agreement between the clubs over Howard's omission.
However, a statement from the Premier League confirmed: 'At the time of Tim Howard's permanent transfer from Manchester United to Everton, the Premier League ensured there were no agreements in place that contravened our rules.
'As a result of recent comments we had sought further clarification from both clubs and are satisfied that it remains the case that there were no agreements that breached any of our rules.
'Everton were free to play Tim Howard in their fixture against Manchester United had they so wished - and this has been confirmed by both clubs.'
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=428078&cc=4716[/b] -
probably had some secret agreement, or everton just didn't know the rules.Originally posted by ghimpheng:why didn't they do so then since they are free to it is their first team keeper and i see no reason why they need to drop tim howard since he is free to play against united -
Someone's not happy. Look, even Jose has told the crowds that his boys kept their chin up. -
there was a verbal agreement, didnt u read?Originally posted by ghimpheng:why didn't they do so then since they are free to it is their first team keeper and i see no reason why they need to drop tim howard since he is free to play against united -
Aiyah, just like that time Robbie "God" Fowler came back to Liverpool from Man C for free but had a gentleman's agreement with Stuart Pearce not to play against them.
-
verbal agreement ? and everton stupidly accepted it when they don't even need to keep their promise since it is against the rules and kelong with their 2nd / 3rd choice keeper ? and phil neville own goal ?Originally posted by omgukilledkenny:there was a verbal agreement, didnt u read? -
Ten-man Chelsea fought to the end but their flickering title challenge was finally snuffed out at the Emirates Stadium to spark a Premiership party at Manchester United.
Despite the first-half dismissal of Khalid Boulahrouz, Jose Mourinho's side not only managed to drag themselves level from Gilberto's penalty opener but also have what would have been a late Joe Cole winner disallowed.
On and on the visitors pushed looking for salvation. In the end, there was none, effectively allowing Arsene Wenger to gift-wrap domestic supremacy and send it north to old rival Sir Alex Ferguson.
Mourinho can be justifiably proud of his side for their fighting spirit but in excusing Didier Drogba, Ashley Cole and Ricardo Carvalho from duty because of the injuries they have carried through an exhausting schedule, the Chelsea coach probably knew what was coming.
All that remains now for Mourinho is the delicate decision over whether to reciprocate the guard of honour Ferguson offered his champion side two years ago when United head to Stamford Bridge on Wednesday, and the small matter of an FA Cup Final meeting with the Red Devils on May 19.
Mourinho could cite an injury problem for all his absent stars but for all the world, it appeared as though the Chelsea boss had given up the title ghost.
With Drogba and Andriy Shevchenko both missing, Shaun Wright-Phillips became probably the smallest attacking line-leader in Premiership history.
Wright-Phillips represented a clear threat to the Arsenal defence, as did Joe Cole, but with Frank Lampard delivering a succession of set-pieces straight to Jens Lehmann, the home goal was relatively quiet.
Cole did provide the one genuine moment of excitement, when he reacted quickly amid some defensive hesitancy from Arsenal to cut the ball across the six-yard area. Sadly for Chelsea, there was no-one in a blue shirt with the necessary thirst for goals to get on the end of it.
It would be hard to imagine Wenger sending out his team with the specific task of doing United a favour but clearly that was the by-product of their own desire to emphasise their effectiveness against their London rivals.
Indeed, having completed a league double over Ferguson's men this term, Wenger might wonder why his team have ended up so far off the pace.
The answer lies in a lack of consistency in front of goal which was evident again as Emmanuel Adebayor wasted two gilt-edged opportunities to put the Gunners in front.
Adebayor's first chance came after a delightful exchange of passes between Abou Diaby and Cesc Fabregas. The ball eventually arrived at the feet of Denilson, whose flick into the path of Adebayor was inspired. The finish was anything but as the Togo forward fired straight at Petr Cech.
At least that effort was on target. The second, when Emmanuel Eboue chipped a long ball deep into Chelsea territory, flew harmlessly wide of the visitors goal.
The method of creating the opportunity should have served as a warning to Chelsea, and in particular Boulahrouz.
But, when Lehmann launched a punt forward that John Terry failed to cut out, the Dutchman was caught out by Julio Baptista's pace.
In his desperation to challenge for possession, Boulahrouz succeeded only in bundling the Arsenal man over. The penalty award was automatic, as was the red card and Gilberto stepped up to calmly send Cech the wrong way.
Furious Chelsea assistant-boss Steve Clarke berated referee Alan Wiley all the way to the tunnel after the half-time whistle had gone.
Maybe it was the sheer frustration of feeling the title slip from their grasp that provoked Clarke. There was little else to trigger such a feeling of injustice as TV replays proved Wiley had got the decision exactly right.
While not particularly spiteful, there was an undercurrent of physicality running through the contest which meant it was no great surprise when Denilson was carried off 10 minutes into the second-half, the legacy of a thunderous challenge from Paulo Ferreira.
Against his former club, William Gallas should have doubled Arsenal's lead instead of heading Fabregas' corner over from five yards.
Had Gallas found the net, it would have saved Ferguson and his players 20 nervous minutes after action-man Michael Essien had levelled with a glancing header as he met Wright-Phillips' low cross at the near post.
Twice Lehmann required the end of his fingers to deny Chelsea after Cole's superb finish had correctly been ruled out for offside.
But no matter how many bodies the visitors pushed forward, a winner proved elusive allowing Ferguson to be thankful to Arsenal - for possibly the first time in his life. -
saltiga i quote your thread over to various other forums with the same title hope you don't mind
-
the original deal was a season-long loan...thus technically they were not allowed to play howard...that part is clear..
but because man united allowed everton to sew up the deal before the season ended, everton probably had a gentlemen's agreement with man united so that howard still wouldn't play against his previous owners..
i think its all fine..
p.s: you never know...maybe it was mourinho who made that complain to the FA... -
and why didn't they make report just before/after the match? why must wait til few weeks later?Originally posted by ghimpheng:why didn't they do so then since they are free to it is their first team keeper and i see no reason why they need to drop tim howard since he is free to play against united -
Part of the deal I guess. Man Utd could jolly well stuff him in reserve. Its not as though they need that 3mil pounds at all. It was supposed to be a loan till season end and by loan agreement, Howard could not play against Man Utd but Man Utd was kind enough to sell it to them earlier as they requested.
If Everton decided to play Howard, Man Utd could also not do anything about it at all.
But Everton had the Dignity to Honour the deal. Something some do not have.
Doesn't matter anyway. Later if Howard play and Everton lose then some people will then say Howard Kelong. -
EXACTLY!Originally posted by jianfish9:Part of the deal I guess. Man Utd could jolly well stuff him in reserve. Its not as though they need that 3mil pounds at all. It was supposed to be a loan till season end and by loan agreement, Howard could not play against Man Utd but Man Utd was kind enough to sell it to them earlier as they requested.
If Everton decided to play Howard, Man Utd could also not do anything about it at all.
But Everton had the Dignity to Honour the deal. Something some do not have.
Doesn't matter anyway. Later if Howard play and Everton lose then some people will then say Howard Kelong. -
they need to pay him weekly wages and listen to his whining / rantings / complaints and affect reserves atomsphere or wateverOriginally posted by jianfish9:Part of the deal I guess. Man Utd could jolly well stuff him in reserve. Its not as though they need that 3mil pounds at all. It was supposed to be a loan till season end and by loan agreement, Howard could not play against Man Utd but Man Utd was kind enough to sell it to them earlier as they requested.
If Everton decided to play Howard, Man Utd could also not do anything about it at all.
But Everton had the Dignity to Honour the deal. Something some do not have.
Doesn't matter anyway. Later if Howard play and Everton lose then some people will then say Howard Kelong.
what nonsense when u said man utd was kind enough to sell it to everton earlier
didn't knew man utd fear Tim Howard so much -
Its nt scared of Howard, its dun wan ani ill-feeling of old club versus new club.
-
who cares.. congrats manu
-
See what I said? He cried a few days ago about us bullying him then now he's starting it all over again
-
so where you going with this?Originally posted by ghimpheng:they need to pay him weekly wages and listen to his whining / rantings / complaints and affect reserves atomsphere or watever
what nonsense when u said man utd was kind enough to sell it to everton earlier
didn't knew man utd fear Tim Howard so much -
Chelscum????Originally posted by felirox:TS must be a chelscum fan it doesn't even sound close, guess you're pretty limited up there.
if your thinking is that to post news about rival teams means support for their biggest rival then i would like to believe that you're no better then Gimpheng, a no lifer -
Why are people so adamant that everton HAVE to play Tim Howard? He is not even a threat and i daresay, that even Bosnich or Van Der Gouw plays better than him seriously...
It's up to Moyes' discretion to play him or not and he certainly knows best since he's the manager.. In that case, why didnt chelsea play Hilario for the rest of the season even though cech was ok 