Tottenham Hotspur Breaches of Jermain Defoe Transfer - Times Exclusive

[SaKkA.kenchiku]

The topic is hot at the moment so they run it and sensationalize it. There is no conspiracy to defend City or Chelsea. It’s a topic all are talking about with Everton, City and Chelsea so they pick up on this and list the potential penalties to get reads…. We’ve probably broken the rules it will be similar to Arsenals fine but not like Lutron at all as that was much worse and the article manipulates this to make a bigger story.

 

[Yiddo100]

So we’ve used an unlicensed agent? Don’t really get the whole uproar, maybe I’m missing something big.
I’d be shocked if 75% of the PL haven’t done so themselves, fine us/slap on the wrist then warn of much harsher penalty if done again and then move on.

 

[Cavehillspur]

Arsenal got fined 60k for using an unlicensed agent....

Arsenal fined £60,000 after breaching agent rules in Calum Chambers deal

Arsenal were also given a warning in relation to the transfer of Calum Chambers from Southampton

www.theguardian.com

Arsenal... again... From 2005.

Arsenal fined over unlicensed agent

Arsenal are to consider launching an appeal after being found guilty of dealing with an unregistered agent by the Football Association. The Barclays Premiership champions were fined £10,000 by the FA

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Metalhead]

Well, if the worst comes to the worst, we can always wheel Lord Sir Alan out of retirement. He has successfully taken on the footballing authorities before.

 

[TheCheeseRoom]

This feels like mud slinging.

The PL need to own the broader situation and make some decisions on City and Chelsea or this will spiral quickly.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

This feels like mud slinging.

The PL need to own the broader situation and make some decisions on City and Chelsea or this will spiral quickly.

They can’t, the City case has already been decided by the prem, it’s now with the independent committee who are separate that must either decide in the premier league’s favour or City’s favour. The immense scale means the case could take 2-4 years. The premier league is represented by Adam Lewis KC who is considered the best in the business while City have Lord Pannick. It will take as long as it takes.

The Premier League can only speed up the Chelsea case as the formal number of charges and evidence hasn’t been presented to the independent committee yet although as Chelsea have already admitted to some of the offences it could end up being quicker once it goes to the committee.

law and justice move slow but for a reason, the worst thing would be a forced quick decision built on sand that Chelsea or City could appeal and then totally overturn. Last thing we need is ‘got off on a technically’.

 

[Wig]

So we’ve used an unlicensed agent? Don’t really get the whole uproar, maybe I’m missing something big.
I’d be shocked if 75% of the PL haven’t done so themselves, fine us/slap on the wrist then warn of much harsher penalty if done again and then move on.

Was this for Defoe's transfer from us to Portsmouth, in which case who is more liable for using the agent - is that us as the selling club or Portsmouth as the buying club? Or are both clubs potentially in trouble?

I would have thought that Portsmouth are the ones who are making the payments as the buying club?

All the news alerts seem to be focusing on Spurs so I'm trying to understand is that because we were the ones at fault here for using the agent in question, or is that just because Spurs is the higher profle club compared to Portsmouth in league one?

 

[mil1lion]

Lawton's comments about Luton's 10-point deduction are so sensationalist. Luton was fined and given the points deduction as punishment for a combined 15 charges. The points deduction was relating to administration and serious financial breaches, not the use of an unlicensed agent.

All Lawton is doing is what a lot of journalists do. Take a scenario and use another example of the most extreme case. What he has said basically is this type of issue is serious and then given an example of the Luton case to show how serious it can be taken. This is what gets people talking and clicking articles online. It's basically the equivalent of saying you could be banned from driving and fined £2500 for speeding. That would only apply if you already had points and speed on the motorway and plead not guilty. If that was Luton we're essentially doing 40 in a 30 by comparison. A £100 fine wouldn't be as big a headline though.

 

[easley91]

I've just realised it was Defoe's move to Portsmouth and not back to us from them. So why aren't Portsmouth being mentioned? Starting to think there might not be much to worry about here.

 

[Wig]

I've just realised it was Defoe's move to Portsmouth and not back to us from them. So why aren't Portsmouth being mentioned? Starting to think there might not be much to worry about here.

Exactly what I queried in my above post... are we liable or are Portsmouth as they're the buying club

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

It depends who the agent was working for......they can work for either club or the player, and often there will be a separate agent for all three!

 

[mil1lion]

We signed him back though so it should just cancel it out

 

[Neon_Knight_]

All Lawton is doing is what a lot of journalists do. Take a scenario and use another example of the most extreme case. What he has said basically is this type of issue is serious and then given an example of the Luton case to show how serious it can be taken. This is what gets people talking and clicking articles online.

He hasn't used an example of an extreme case. He has completely misrepresented the facts of the example used. Luton's points deduction related to far more serious rule breaches that had nothing to do with the use of an unlicensed agent. They were charged with 15 rule breaches simultaneously and the use of an unlicensed agent was probably the least serious of the lot. The reality is that Luton would have been sanctioned with a smaller fine (i.e. significantly less than the £50k fine) and not deducted any points, had they only been charged with the use of an unlicensed agent.

Lawton knows exactly what he's doing by suggesting, but not directly stating, that the points deduction was for the use of an unlicensed agent. He knows that's not what that sanction was punishment for. He also knows that no team has ever been deducted points for the use of an unlicensed agent. In politics, this would be considered "deliberately misleading" rather than "lying". In journalism this is considered "standard practice of a typical slime-ball journalist".

It's basically the equivalent of saying you could be banned from driving and fined £2500 for speeding. That would only apply if you already had points and speed on the motorway and plead not guilty. If that was Luton we're essentially doing 40 in a 30 by comparison. A £100 fine wouldn't be as big a headline though.

No, it's basically the equivalent of saying someone was sent to prison for 10 years for speeding, when actually they were incarcerated for armed robbery and also happened to be given a miniscule speeding fine after been caught by a speed camera during their attempted getaway.

 

[easley91]

I think I'm more confused now than I was yesterday. Bubble's summary says we had access to Defoe through Thomas, but we were selling him, so why would we need that access at that point? I'd understand it more if we were buying him and trying to persuade him to come.

 

[Japhet]

As long as the punishments are consistent. Everton get a 10 point deduction for one infringement in one season, so City get 1150 points deduction spread equally over the 15(?) years they've been taking the piss. That should keep them out of the EPL til 2039 or thereabouts.

 

[Metalhead]

All Lawton is doing is what a lot of journalists do. Take a scenario and use another example of the most extreme case. What he has said basically is this type of issue is serious and then given an example of the Luton case to show how serious it can be taken. This is what gets people talking and clicking articles online. It's basically the equivalent of saying you could be banned from driving and fined £2500 for speeding. That would only apply if you already had points and speed on the motorway and plead not guilty. If that was Luton we're essentially doing 40 in a 30 by comparison. A £100 fine wouldn't be as big a headline though.

So kind of like the Daily Express and their weather stories.

 

[PaulM]

Seems fairly minor albeit haven't read much of the articles. Certainly pales in comparison to what other clubs have done but if we are guilty, we're guilty. I'm not going to worry too much about it. If we do get a punishment and it sticks, I'm sure it'll be warranted because there is no way that Levy doesn't take this all the way legally if we get severely punished.

 

[easley91]

Sounds like it stemmed from Defoe's issues with his previous agent, Sky Andrews and claiming he represented himself. I don't think we enlisted Thomas directly from what I have read. Only Peters, who had licensing issues of his own, and through him Thomas got involved. We enlisted Peters, who then enlisted Thomas.

 

[jordibwoy]

Was the selling club punished more severely than Arsenal in that case?

Didn't see anything in the link that was shared about Southampton being punished. No idea, but wouldn't be surprised if it was deemed "not important enough for the story"

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

So the crux is if there is any new evidence. Is there actually any new evidence? Or is this just bringing up an old case which was already dismissed previously because it was mentioned in another proceeding?

It wasn't even mentioned in another proceedings. There is no new litigation, post 2010, that is relvent to the issue or has considered any of the evidence. It is, literally, a journalist being made aware of the arbitration findings and the subsequent inaction of the FA.

Lawton says that he has been looking into these arbitrations for a 'couple of years' yet only this week happens to write about this 'huge problem for Spurs'. I wonder what else might have happend this week to make it newsworthy now??

The whole article is ridiculous and the timing even more so. It's a blatant attempt to 'reset' or mitigate the starting point in relation to transfer related breaches. Everton's points deduction has raised the sanction bar massively. There are obviously people/clubs with a vested interest in some balance being applied. This gives them the perfect oppotunity; 'look at Spurs, they didn't get even a slap on the wrist - that's what the starting point should be, not the ridiculous 10 point deduction Everton got'.

If there is any culpability now, it is on behalf of the FA.