Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scottish Mag

Premier chief backs Freddie

Recommended Posts

Freddie Shepherd will pursue his compensation claim against the Football Association with the Premier League's backing after Sir Dave Richards insisted Newcastle's chairman is within his rights to seek legal redress as the Michael Owen dispute rumbles on.

 

The £17m striker has moved closer to his long-awaited comeback in recent days, but there has been no such progress behind the scenes as United officials continue to seek recompense for the career-threatening knee problem that has sidelined Owen for the last 10 months. Shepherd has threatened to prevent the 27-year-old from playing for England this summer unless the FA offer a fair settlement in regard to the medical bills that have cost the club more than £150,000.

 

And, although it would be a drastic step to seek an injunction from the courts to ensure that Steve McClaren is unable to select Owen for international action, Shepherd can count on some powerful allies for support in what promises to be a test case that could change football forever.

 

As the Premier League's long-serving chairman, Richards is among the English game's most influential figures. That he is sympathetic towards Newcastle's cause could be significant in ending the impasse.

 

"I think Freddie Shepherd is very, very justified in asking for certain things," he said during an appearance in the North-East to help promote the Barclays Spaces for Sport initiative. "Mr Shepherd and Newcastle are amongst our members and they have the support of the Premier League.

 

"I can stand here and ask who has suffered because of this. Michael Owen has suffered. But Newcastle United have as well because they have not had his services and someone has to pay for that.

 

"I think Mr Shepherd is quite justified in having his say, and saying `This is what we have got to do'. It's a shame that football has got itself into a position where it is difficult for the FA and Newcastle to get together and sort this out outside the media. But Mr Shepherd has a right to say what he's said."

 

Although Owen was injured while playing for England during last summer's World Cup finals, it is Newcastle who have picked up the bills having sent their record signing to the United States for a career-saving operation.

 

Shepherd, who is also seeking compensation from Fifa having rejected a £1m settlement offer, this week criticised the FA for abdicating their responsibilities towards the player. Having insisted that United have not even received `the price of an aspirin', the St James's Park supremo said unless an agreement can be reached, Owen will be prevented from featuring in England's critical European Championship qualifier against Estonia in June.

 

All parties will hope the matter can be resolved without the need for such action but neither side looks like budging. As an FA board member, Richards is in an awkward position and he knows the consequences could be far-reaching.

 

"I think it's a real test case and it's something that needs to be sorted out in the game," he said. "We have rules and we have regulations and when you join in this sort of thing and you allow players to go (on international duty), you fulfil those obligations and say `Yes, we understand what we are getting into. But over the years, things have changed, and I think we should re-address it, look at it, and lay down some new formulas for how things ought to be done regarding international players and their release."

 

Although an important issue, Newcastle's supporters are more interested in when Owen will next be seen in a black-and-white shirt. Glenn Roeder last night claimed the striker was `50-50' for Sunday's match against Chelsea, although Owen last night admitted such a scenario is unlikely.

 

"We play Chelsea on Sunday, but I'm just feeling the effects of doing so much work and I have got a bit of a tight groin at the minute," he said. "I'm looking at the game after that (at Reading on April 30) to be making my return. It has been frustrating, but when you play at the highest level, you are open to these big injuries. The rehab has gone perfectly well. I played in a behind-closed-doors game and everything has gone well."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole compensation lark is a disgusting abdication of collective responsibility. I fail to see what the hell it has to do with the English FA when the cost being incurred is purely down to the increase in wages and income because of the Premier League themselves and their alliance with Sky. Hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see what the hell it has to do with the English FA

 

Ok, you don't see what Owen's injury at the WC has to do with the FA when the FA has made millions through using Owen and other club's players practically free of charge? You don't think they should take responsibility for effectively putting another company's asset out of use for nearly an entire season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see what the hell it has to do with the English FA

 

Ok, you don't see what Owen's injury at the WC has to do with the FA when the FA has made millions through using Owen and other club's players practically free of charge? You don't think they should take responsibility for effectively putting another company's asset out of use for nearly an entire season?

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...st&p=311847

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't want Owen to be treated like an asset? Well he is one, that's a simple fact of business and while I'm trying to avoid using Freddy's lending a tool analogy what he says is true, the FA are making money from players we are paying for so when they get injured playing for England the FA should pay for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't want Owen to be treated like an asset? Well he is one, that's a simple fact of business and while I'm trying to avoid using Freddy's lending a tool analogy what he says is true, the FA are making money from players we are paying for so when they get injured playing for England the FA should pay for them.

 

 

That's just sad. Just throw out a hundred years of football tradition, not to mention everything that is good about sport, because our 'asset' got broken.

 

Forgetting the fact that we purchased an 'asset' that we knew was an England player, what do you think would have happened had he got injured in one of our own games? If we had cover for our asset, why didn't it cover every game we knew it would appear in? Or is the truth that we actually got lucky that it happened for England, as if it had been one of our games we would have been up shit creek?

 

It's a ridiculous claim that will only end up with football becoming even less of a sport than it is now. The inflation caused by the Premier League and Sky are to blame for the cost of his injury. This kind of 'asset' bullshit only gives more weight to such attitudes that you need £100m to be a top four club, that the top clubs should break-away and form a protected super league, not open to lowly clubs that only have second-rate assets on their inventory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're mostly talking bollocks, yes it is doing away with tradition and indeed the PL are making a lot of money but what about the money the FA are making? They've just got a TV deal worth £425m for the FA Cup and England's home games, that's no pittance. I'm not advocating them paying player's wages while on duty but there are such huge amounts of money involved, on both sides, that should a player be injured while playing for England it is only right they cover his medical costs and pay his wages while he is out as they're benefitting financially from using him for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're mostly talking bollocks, yes it is doing away with tradition and indeed the PL are making a lot of money but what about the money the FA are making? They've just got a TV deal worth £425m for the FA Cup and England's home games, that's no pittance. I'm not advocating them paying player's wages while on duty but there are such huge amounts of money involved, on both sides, that should a player be injured while playing for England it is only right they cover his medical costs and pay his wages while he is out as they're benefitting financially from using him for free.

 

You still haven't answered why we shouldn't have covered an 'asset' we already knew was an England player? What would we have done had this happened for us? This financial loss is self made, and we are blaming anybody but ourselves.

 

Basically, you want national football to be scrapped. That's the only logical conclusion to this course of action. And for all you keep bleating on about what the FA has made, it is nothing compared to the PL and NUFC plc from utilising 'England assets'. The PL is part of an FA administered league. You cannot separate the two when it suits you.

 

If you really want to be pedantic, perhaps the FA should be levying charges to NUFC everytime an England player performs for us, making us money. After all 'England's Micheal Owen' arguably owes part of his draw down to England.

 

We will most likely never again be in the position to suffer from having a valuable 'asset' broken in a World Cup, but mark my words, somewhere down the line, we will suffer the concequences of this change in attitude to the football world. In the same way we once thought it important to smash the transfer record, we know suffer for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're mostly talking bollocks, yes it is doing away with tradition and indeed the PL are making a lot of money but what about the money the FA are making? They've just got a TV deal worth £425m for the FA Cup and England's home games, that's no pittance. I'm not advocating them paying player's wages while on duty but there are such huge amounts of money involved, on both sides, that should a player be injured while playing for England it is only right they cover his medical costs and pay his wages while he is out as they're benefitting financially from using him for free.

 

You still haven't answered why we shouldn't have covered an 'asset' we already knew was an England player? What would we have done had this happened for us? This financial loss is self made, and we are blaming anybody but ourselves.

 

Freddy came out at the time of the injury and said England had insured half his wages and we had insured the rest, I'm not 100% sure of the details but I'm talking about the principal rather than the individual case. Had the injury happened while playing for us then that's fair enough, we're benefitting by having him on the field playing for Newcastle, we're not benefitting football-wise by having him playing in an England shirt.

 

Basically, you want national football to be scrapped. That's the only logical conclusion to this course of action. And for all you keep bleating on about what the FA has made, it is nothing compared to the PL and NUFC plc from utilising 'England assets'. The PL is part of an FA administered league. You cannot separate the two when it suits you.

 

If you really want to be pedantic, perhaps the FA should be levying charges to NUFC everytime an England player performs for us, making us money. After all 'England's Micheal Owen' arguably owes part of his draw down to England.

 

He's not England's asset in the same way he is ours in that England didn't pay the huge transfer fee or his wages, we do. Yes we utilise our assets but we pay the players handsomely for that, why would the FA charge us for using a player we've paid for? You're talking complete bollocks there.

 

And it wouldn't be the end of international football, if all the FAs had their players adequately insured, either paid for themselves or with the help of FIFA in the case of poorer nations, then we wouldn't have this problem. FAs around the world have been getting rich off clubs' players for a long time and while I'm not saying they should pay for using them they should pay if they get injured as a result of playing for their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"we're not benefitting football-wise by having him playing in an England shirt."

 

I'd have a serious think about that statement.

 

You're treating this as an us and them issue, which it categorically is not. The Premier league, transfer fees etc etc only exist because of the institutions set up by the FA. The financial loss caused by Owen's injury has nothing to do with anything the FA have done. This has nothing to do with who pays Owen's wages, he always was an England player, he was before he joined us, he will be after he leaves. It goes with the territory, call it a business risk, or call it prestige.

 

By your logic, the FA would be within their rights not to play any player worth over a set amount, again another ridiculous statement. The monetary value of losing these players has nothing to do with the FA, there has always existed the situation that top players will play for their country. Why should this now change now the Premier League are cashing in? This risk should be accounted for by the clubs. We didn't.

 

You absolutely cannot separate national football from league football. God knows what the end result of this will be. Do you imagine the FA is some kind of separate company, paying out dividends to shareholders? It is not. Who do you think doesn't get the money that the FA have to pay NUFC because they happen to employ an expensive asset?

 

Incidentally, where do you think the insurance premiums you say the FA should be paying come from? Why do you think FA Cup tickets are now £95? Perhaps we are already seeing the effect of Freddies short sightedness. How will you feel when the day comes that the FA can only field a chamionship level side in a World Cup due to the financial risk? And on the day the World Cup ends up only having 10 entrants?

 

The only way anyone can reconcile this action is if you want to see England be turned into a commercial team with the concequent contractual nightmares, and see the FA become a private company, and not the governing body of an organisation that we profit from being a part of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"we're not benefitting football-wise by having him playing in an England shirt."

 

I'd have a serious think about that statement.

 

Exactly how are we benefitting football wise by having him playing for England?

 

 

You're treating this as an us and them issue, which it categorically is not. The Premier league, transfer fees etc etc only exist because of the institutions set up by the FA. The financial loss caused by Owen's injury has nothing to do with anything the FA have done. This has nothing to do with who pays Owen's wages, he always was an England player, he was before he joined us, he will be after he leaves. It goes with the territory, call it a business risk, or call it prestige.

 

It is an us and them situation. Do you think the FA give a fuck about NUFC? And the same could be said for NUFC regarding the FA. How can you say the financial loss has nothing to do with the FA, he was playing for England when he got injured, if he wasn't playing for them he wouldn't have got injured, do you not see the relationship there? And again how is it nothing to do with who pays his wages? Owen has picked up £4m in wages since he last kicked a ball, at least half of which have been paid for by us, this is everything to do with wages. I know he was an England player but because a situation has been allowed to remain for 100 years doesn't necessarily make it right and someone had to take a stand and fair play to Freddy he has.

 

By your logic, the FA would be within their rights not to play any player worth over a set amount, again another ridiculous statement.

 

As I already stated, if an FA can't afford its insurance then FIFA shouls help them out, the FA are no paupers and can afford the insurance so it isn't an issue here.

 

 

Incidentally, where do you think the insurance premiums you say the FA should be paying come from? Why do you think FA Cup tickets are now £95? Perhaps we are already seeing the effect of Freddies short sightedness. How will you feel when the day comes that the FA can only field a chamionship level side in a World Cup due to the financial risk? And on the day the World Cup ends up only having 10 entrants?

 

Again even more bollocks, the FA can well afford the insurance, the TV money, sponsorship deals and ticket money they will earn over the next four years will be in around the £1bn figure. We've one of, if not the, highest earning FA in the world, they can easily afford the insurance payments. Owen is probably the worst case scenario for the FA, not every injury will be as expensive as his but it is now up to the FA to take steps to protect clubs from injuries to their players, they owe them that much for letting them use their players.

Edited by ewerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The FA owe [NUFC] that much for letting them use their players."

 

I think you need to read up about what the FA actually is, and what the rules are governing the relationship that exists between us and them. The 'borrowing somoene's tools' analogy couldn't be further from the truth.

 

There are no shadowy shareholders who have got one over NUFC through this, NUFC are part of the FA, the activites and thus profits of the FA and the clubs are intertwined, one does not come without the other. It is purely by our being a member club of the FA that we can afford to employ Owen. The financial costs and implications of clubs employing expensive England players are the issue for clubs alone.

 

If anything, the FA should be removing NUFC from the league for not having adequate financial arrangements if we are in such dire financial straights because of this.

Edited by Super_Steve_Howey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a fair idea of what the FA does and its relation to NUFC and I don't think it's as important as you think.

 

So tell me then, what happens if Duff is injured and out for a year while playing for Ireland? NUFC and the FAI are in no way related so does that change things then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The FA owe [NUFC] that much for letting them use their players."

 

I think you need to read up about what the FA actually is, and what the rules are governing the relationship that exists between us and them. The 'borrowing somoene's tools' analogy couldn't be further from the truth.

 

There are no shadowy shareholders who have got one over NUFC through this, NUFC are part of the FA, the activites and thus profits of the FA and the clubs are intertwined, one does not come without the other. It is purely by our being a member club of the FA that we can afford to employ Owen. The financial costs and implications of clubs employing expensive England players are the issue for clubs alone.

 

If anything, the FA should be removing NUFC from the league for not having adequate financial arrangements if we are in such dire financial straights because of this.

 

Load of absolute rubbish tbh. What kind of sycophantic nonsense are you talking? Our players are ours, they don't belong to the FA because we are a member club. It is only by consent that the FA uses NUFC players for the England team, and if those players are injured while so used, it is the FA's responsibility. As for "we can only afford Owen because we're FA members, we should be removed from the League because we can't pay", I have no idea what you're on about. If we can't exist without the FA, they can't exist without their member clubs either. That's the relationship between us, not this vassal --> ruler business you describe.

 

When the FA buys Owen's contract, they can use him when and where they wish. Until then, they pay for the contract they caused him to break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The FA owe [NUFC] that much for letting them use their players."

 

I think you need to read up about what the FA actually is, and what the rules are governing the relationship that exists between us and them. The 'borrowing somoene's tools' analogy couldn't be further from the truth.

 

There are no shadowy shareholders who have got one over NUFC through this, NUFC are part of the FA, the activites and thus profits of the FA and the clubs are intertwined, one does not come without the other. It is purely by our being a member club of the FA that we can afford to employ Owen. The financial costs and implications of clubs employing expensive England players are the issue for clubs alone.

 

If anything, the FA should be removing NUFC from the league for not having adequate financial arrangements if we are in such dire financial straights because of this.

 

Load of absolute rubbish tbh. What kind of sycophantic nonsense are you talking? Our players are ours, they don't belong to the FA because we are a member club. It is only by consent that the FA uses NUFC players for the England team, and if those players are injured while so used, it is the FA's responsibility. As for "we can only afford Owen because we're FA members, we should be removed from the League because we can't pay", I have no idea what you're on about. If we can't exist without the FA, they can't exist without their member clubs either. That's the relationship between us, not this vassal --> ruler business you describe.

 

When the FA buys Owen's contract, they can use him when and where they wish. Until then, they pay for the contract they caused him to break.

 

There's no consent to it at all. Read the articles of accociation. Freddy is well aware of the rules and obligations therein as he is a shareholder of the FA as a respresentative of NUFC. Owen's England commitments are as much part of the clubs obligations as fulfilling fixtures. If Freddy didn't plan for that, it is his fault alone. Contracts have nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a fair idea of what the FA does and its relation to NUFC and I don't think it's as important as you think.

 

So tell me then, what happens if Duff is injured and out for a year while playing for Ireland? NUFC and the FAI are in no way related so does that change things then?

 

There is a relationship between the FAI and NUFC through the FA's and the FIA's affiliation to UEFA. Why do you think we are obliged to release Duff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×