Tom 13921 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 TRANSFER RUMOURS Tottenham's bid for Andrei Arshavin has stalled as Russian side Zenit St Petersburg want £24m, not the £16m Spurs are offering. (The Sun) Meanwhile, Spurs have pulled out of a move for Real Zaragoza's Argentine striker Diego Milito. (The Times) Chelsea are preparing a £25m swoop for Werder Bremen's Brazilian midfielder Diego. (Daily Star, Daily Express) Aston Villa boss Martin O'Neill wants to take Manchester United's French defender Mikael Silvestre on a year's loan. (Daily Mail) Arsenal are closing in on a £10m deal for Udinese's Swiss midfielder Gohkan Inler. (Daily Star) Cristiano Ronaldo will tell Sir Alex Ferguson in person next week that he wants to join Real Madrid. (Various) Everton boss David Moyes wants to get rid of left-back Leighton Baines just a year after signing him for £6m. Moyes wants to trade him for Blackburn's Stephen Warnock. (The Sun) Derby goalkeeper Stephen Bywater is on the brink of joining Spurs. (Daily Star) Bolton have rejected a £1.75m bid for defender Abdoulaye Meite. (Daily Mail) Barcelona president Joan Laporta has dismissed rumours linking the Catalan club with a move for Juventus' French hitman David Trezeguet. (Independent) Blackburn boss Paul Ince reckons the signing of Chilean midfielder Carlos Villaneuva, 22, will help fans forget about the sale of David Bentley to Tottenham. (Various) Everton have enquired about the availability of Club America goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa, according to the player's agent. (The Times) Real Madrid are set to offer forward Robinho a £16m tax-free five-year deal which he will sign, disappointing admirers Chelsea. (Daily Star) Portsmouth flop David Nugent is a £5m target for ambitious Ipswich (Various) Gareth Barry believes his protracted £19m move from Aston Villa to Liverpool will be finalised over the weekend once Villa accept a restructured offer. (Daily Mail) Portsmouth hope to conclude a deal for Tottenham centre-back Younes Kaboul in the next few days. (The Times) Andy Johnson's £12m move from Everton to Fulham has hit a snag after problems with the England striker's medical. (Daily Star) West Ham are close to signing Shakhtar Donetsk goalkeeper Jan Lastuvka. (The Sun) Wolves have taken former Manchester City left-back Ben Thatcher on trial. (Daily Mail) Bolton have rejected an ambitious £1.5m offer for striker Kevin Davies from Hull, who are also in talks with Ivan Campo. (Various) Jimmy Bullard has dashed Wigan's hopes fo re-signing him by saying he is happy at Fulham. (The Sun) Rangers boss Walter Smith is set to sign Cardiff's Dutch defender Glenn Loovens in a £2m deal. (Daily Mirror) Back to top OTHER GOSSIP Furious organisers of Feyenoord's Jubilee Tournament have blasted Celtic after manager Gordon Strachan and one of his players failed to show at a press conference they were contractually obliged to attend. (Various) Joey Barton could be hit with a 15-match ban by the Football Association after he was charged with violent conduct for his training ground attack on Ousmane Dabo last year. (Various) Portsmouth manager Harry Redknapp will not be moving to Russia to become the new boss of CSKA Moscow, according to the Fratton Park club. (Daily Telegraph) AC Milan coach Carlo Ancelotti has confirmed that the Chelsea striker Andriy Shevchenko will not return to the San Siro. (Independent) Jens Lehmann has warned Emmanuel Adebayor he would be making a huge mistake if he left Arsenal this summer. (Various) Chelsea boss Luiz Felipe Scolari insists owner Roman Abramovich has not ordered him to make the Blues play sexy football. (The Sun) Aston Villa defender Curtis Davies will stun doctors by being fit for the new season after an Achilles operation in March. (The Sun) Back to top AND FINALLY New Spurs signing David Bentley says he wants to entertain the White Hart Lane faithful just like Paul Gascoigne used to. (Various) Sunderland new boy El Hadji Diouf reckons he is just like his new gaffer: "Everybody knows Roy Keane as a temperamental man and they know me like that as well," said the Senegalese. (Daily Mail) Crystal Palace are lining up a shock move for striker Jerson Dos Santos, who has just quit Sutton United after scoring 30 goals in his first season. He started playing football two years ago - there's hope for all of us. (Daily Star) The F.A can't just pull out a 15 Match ban this late. That's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 17477 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I bet they do, now if it was Steeeeeeeeeeeeevie Geeeeeeeeeeeeee it would be different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I reckon that's bullshit like but it would be absolutely outrageous. I don't see how it's much worse than what John Hartson done to Berkavic that time. Hartson admitted to that to and it was, iirc, all dealt with 'in-house'. He certainly got nothing like a 15 game ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 48 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 What happened to Roy Keane about that bit in his book? I cant remember now. Its still bullshit like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I t didn't even happen when he was a Newcastle player so how can they punish us? punish him financially but why should nufc suffer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay 8 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Rangers have signed Bougherra so I see carlos cellular coming in the next couple of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Still, at least there's nothing in the papers yet about Joey Barton actually being the Anti-Christ... just a matter of time imo though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13921 Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? Were you there like? If takes two to fight more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27285 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? Law ain't your strong point is it? Come to think about it you don't really appear to have any strong points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? I'm not sure tbh but I think Distin was the only witness who gave a statement and he refused to turn up in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay 8 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? Were you there like? If takes two to fight more often than not. Tom, calm down. Stop defeding Barton just cause Danny gets on your nerves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I know it doesnt take much but I am confused. How could it be self defence if he kept bashing the guy whilst he was on the ground? He had to be guilty didnt he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? Law ain't your strong point is it? Come to think about it you don't really appear to have any strong points. No it isnt. I am more numerically minded, please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I know it doesnt take much but I am confused. How could it be self defence if he kept bashing the guy whilst he was on the ground? He had to be guilty didnt he? I think he chinned him, obviously. But their are factors like provocation etc. taken into consideration. A story emerged after the event that Dabo threw the first punch. I don't have any idea how accurate that was though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13921 Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 Either way who's getting punished by the ban? The player on £60k a week or the club desperately looking for cover for an F.A charge that's 15 months late. It will be challenged and shortened by either way why should we suffer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27285 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I know it doesnt take much but I am confused. How could it be self defence if he kept bashing the guy whilst he was on the ground? He had to be guilty didnt he? "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Either way who's getting punished by the ban? The player on £60k a week or the club desperately looking for cover for an F.A charge that's 15 months late. It will be challenged and shortened by either way why should we suffer? I totally agree. I personally think he has served his sentence and that should be that. What is the point of the FA punishing him as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27285 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? Law ain't your strong point is it? Come to think about it you don't really appear to have any strong points. No it isnt. I am more numerically minded, please explain. Read alex's post below yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Either way who's getting punished by the ban? The player on £60k a week or the club desperately looking for cover for an F.A charge that's 15 months late. It will be challenged and shortened by either way why should we suffer? I totally agree. I personally think he has served his sentence and that should be that. What is the point of the FA punishing him as well? No he hasn't. It was suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I'm not defending him (no pun intended) btw. I just think there's a chance he would have got off but they all saved a lot of time by Barton pleading guilty because the judge had indicated there would be no custodial sentence. I'm by no means an expert but I know that assault can be difficult to prove, especially without corroborating evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13921 Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 Either way who's getting punished by the ban? The player on £60k a week or the club desperately looking for cover for an F.A charge that's 15 months late. It will be challenged and shortened by either way why should we suffer? I totally agree. I personally think he has served his sentence and that should be that. What is the point of the FA punishing him as well? No he hasn't. It was suspended. I thought that was almost jargon for ''Get Away With It'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Either way who's getting punished by the ban? The player on £60k a week or the club desperately looking for cover for an F.A charge that's 15 months late. It will be challenged and shortened by either way why should we suffer? I totally agree. I personally think he has served his sentence and that should be that. What is the point of the FA punishing him as well? No he hasn't. It was suspended. His suspended sentence was the punishment, it was only suspended in light of the time he had done already. Either way this FA charge on top looks a bit petty and weak willed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now