The first thing any follower of West Ham United should admit is that it was
not fair. There will be no glee and no gloating here, so supporters of Wigan
Athletic, Sheffield United and Fulham can read on without risk of
hypertension.
The club’s representatives lied and no mitigation outweighs that. Carlos
Tevez, the West Ham player of the year, brought the club points that should
have been taken away. Paul Jewell, the Wigan manager, Dave Whelan, the
chairman, and Neil Warnock, the Sheffield United manager, insist that, in
the same circumstances, their clubs would have been docked points in double
figures, but that is unproven and unlikely.
At this stage in the season, it would appear that the FA Premier League would
rather incinerate its rulebook than have relegation issues decided in the
High Court, as would surely have happened. The shrewdest move by Eggert
Magnússon, the West Ham chairman, was not withdrawing the threat of legal
appeal if a points deduction was imposed, even when admitting guilt. On
moral grounds, this should not have placed the Premier League in a difficult
position, but in reality it did.
While West Ham’s case was heard by an independent commission, it is
unthinkable that those involved in the decision were not made aware of the
organisational meltdown that would result from one particular form of
punishment.
No one should use this to justify the decision. West Ham’s penalty should have
been the same whether applied in October or April, sitting in tenth place or
eighteenth. It is also worthless to assess Tévez’s impact in terms of goals
or points gained; he galvanised West Ham’s season, pure and simple. If the
Premier League had demanded retribution equivalent to Tévez’s impact at
Upton Park, points would not suffice; the only conclusion would have been
summary relegation.
So mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, confiteor Deo omnipotenti.
But.
On Saturday, when Manchester United played at Goodison Park in a match that is
looked upon as definitive in the running of the title race, Tim Howard, the
Everton goalkeeper, could not play because of an agreement between the
clubs. And if that is not a third party influencing the policies and
performance of a team, what is?
That was the root of West Ham’s rule infringement, remember. The systematic
lying was the worst of it, but the reason that former directors were so keen
to cover up the truth of the Tévez and Javier Mascherano transfers was to
avoid a breach of Premier League rule U18, which governs third parties
having a material influence on club policies and performance.
Mascherano’s career was controlled by two outside companies, Global Soccer
Agencies and Mystere Services. Tévez was owned by Media Sports International
and Just Sports. But when the Everton goalkeeper is removed from a match
against Manchester United by Manchester United, how is that so different?
Howard was on loan from United to Everton this season, but on February 14 his
move became permanent. At that moment, all aspects of his loan arrangement
were discontinued, bar one. As a condition of the deal, United insisted that
Howard could not play against them when the teams met on April 28. Everton
had no choice but to acquiesce because David Moyes, the manager, wanted the
player signed as soon as possible to ward off interest from other clubs
(Howard has had an excellent season).
Had Everton not consented to the April 28 clause, United would not have
allowed the loan to become permanent until the summer, running the risk of a
rival bid, and Howard would still not have been able to play against United
last weekend. Over a barrel, Everton agreed, which on Saturday meant that a
third party (Manchester United) materially influenced the selection of a
player who contractually belongs to Everton.
There is more. The April 28 agreement became active only if the title had not
been decided. So there can be no suggestion that this is standard practice.
United insisted on an arrangement that would be of benefit to them if the
match was significant; if not, Everton could have played Howard. And did it
influence Everton’s performance? You bet.
In the 61st minute, Everton were leading 2-0 and were comfortable. At that
moment, Iain Turner, the goalkeeper standing in for Howard, dropped a
harmless corner by Ryan Giggs at the feet of John O’Shea, who scored. This
was the turning point. Sir Alex Ferguson had kept Cristiano Ronaldo on the
bench, behaving as if he felt the game beyond recovery. When O’Shea got his
goal, Ferguson swiftly introduced the Player of the Year and United went on
to win 4-2.
Turner was very weak for the second goal, too, which was put through his own
net by Phil Neville, the Everton midfield player and brother of Gary, the
United captain. And, despite these bizarre coincidences, there is no
suggestion of nefarious activity at Goodison Park; but no thanks to the
Premier League for that.
The governing body that took £5.5 million from West Ham for concealing
third-party influence at their club has allowed a system to foster
domestically that has far greater potential for abuse. There have been three
United goalkeepers active in the Barclays Premiership this season – and only
one of them for Manchester United.
As well as Edwin van der Sar, the first-choice, Ben Foster plays for Watford
and Howard for Everton. So in four of 38 matches, United have guaranteed
facing an understudy in goal. They are not alone in farming out talent
(Tomasz Kuszczak, Van der Sar’s deputy, is on loan from West Bromwich
Albion), but considering Turner’s hapless hand in the destiny of the title,
they are the system’s greatest beneficiaries this season.
Taken to its practical conclusion, United could legally, according to Premier
League rules, assemble a squad of ten talented goalkeepers to be loaned
throughout the division, ensuring that they alone would play half of their
matches against inexperienced understudies. On a smaller scale, this has
happened. Howard, not Turner, will play in goal for Everton against Chelsea
on the final day of this season, while Foster was desperately unfortunate to
be on the losing side against Chelsea on March 31, beaten deep in injury
time by Salomon Kalou after an heroic display.
In three matches against United this season (including an FA Cup semi-final),
Watford have fielded Richard Lee, the second choice to Foster, and he has
conceded ten goals.
While obsessing over the role of foreign agents, which is negligible, the
Premier League has given the green light to a far more dangerous loan and
transfer system that allows third parties (who are also rivals) to dictate
team selection and frequently compromises the competition through complex
financial arrangements. If United win the treble this season, Everton will
be £1.7 million better off as part of bonus clauses included in the Wayne
Rooney transfer. Is that healthy? Is that not open to greater manipulation
than any of the arrangements between Tévez and Mascherano’s owners and West
Ham?
On the final day of the season, Everton visit Chelsea for a match that could
decide the title. For argument’s sake, say that fixture involved a trip to
Old Trafford instead. The terms of Rooney’s transfer could dictate that by
losing to United, Everton gain £1.7 million; by winning, the club forfeit
the same sum. If the manager or chairman were unscrupulous, might that fact
not influence policy and performance? Might that not equate to a
half-strength, experimental team, or a lack of ambition? It says something
that English football is not corrupt because it sure as hell is given the
chance to be.
The loan system has had a dubious influence on the Premier League for many
years, which is why, although West Ham supporters know that the club have
got away extraordinarily lightly, few will be lying awake at night racked
with guilt.
In 2003, when West Ham were last relegated, Bolton Wanderers survived in part
because of Sam Allardyce’s astute use of the loan system. Players such as
Iván Campo, Salva Ballesta, Bernard Mendy and Florent Laville kept Bolton
up, home-grown English players such as Joe Cole went down and were lost to
West Ham soon after. No one cared about a rogue system then. Allardyce,
because he is a fine manager, built a club and made Bolton a success story
with permanent players, but the foundation on which that success was laid is
propping up a tower of contradictions over third-party control and interest.
Something has to give. Either the Premier League has to grow up and
acknowledge that the business of football is changing and third-party
arrangements that are commonplace in South America have to be accommodated
within the rulebook, or it has to look beyond Tévez and Mascherano to a
system that allows the opposition to pick players for Everton and could make
Saturday’s result at Goodison Park a nice little earner for everyone.
In the end, who would you rather have influencing policy and performance at
Everton: Moyes, Pini Zahavi or Ferguson?
You mention that United are not alone in farming out talent to other clubs and that West Brom loaned Kuszczak to United, but the club didn't want to lose the player. He was West Brom's first choice keeper, and after losing him to United they played Zuberbuhler, Hoult, then finally Kiely before settling with Kiely as the number 1 keeper. The loan deal wasn't to send him for more experience, he has hardly played at United, the loan - transfer deal is to delay receiving the £4million for other. If you look at the more recent Curtis Davies deal. The club has already received around £14million this summer, now next summer we'll start off with £9million before saying goodbye to anyone.
You are entirely right in the "farce" of prem-prem loan deals, but dont go dragging championship clubs into this, when the players are demanding to leave for the bright lights!
Greg, Birmingham, West Midlands
I guess this article is Samuel’s way of thanking Scudamore for protecting WHU’s interests. When Scudamore said that the Commission was judge and jury, Samuel should have asked why the EPL requested the Commission not to terminate Tevez’s registration, and why they still didn’t despite the Commission’s orders. When Scudamore talked about the EPL rulebook, he should have been asked why they don’t enforce rule E20 which says “In every League Match each participating Club shall field a full strength team.†And finally, following the EPL and WHU actions after April 28th concerning Tevez and Third Party Influence, why Man Utd weren’t charged for approaching Tevez via his agent rather than WHU, and why WHU didn’t get anywhere near Tevez’s value for releasing his registration. I do hope that SUFC find a way to sue the EPL just to hear Scudamore explain his actions in court. Not that it would get to court – Scudamore would settle rather than face difficult questions.
Ian, Reading, UK
What this article seems to miss is the fact that the two situations are not comparable. West Ham have pleaded guilty to breaching the PL rule that clubs cannot enter into a contract that allows a third party to have influence over them or the player. As such the gulity party in the Howard incident, if one exists, is Everton and not Man Utd!!!!!!!! Everton like West ham accepted the terms of the contract and as such they should be punished if any punishment is required! Man Utd are the third party like the company that owns the West Ham players.
Mark, Burnley,
surely the point is , the reason west ham were not deducted points was the fact that tevez a mascherano were not unregistered so why the fuss , i am not a west ham fan , but people are jumping on them very harshly , my view is its good for the premier lge to have players like tevez in it so if west ham stay up good luck to them the raeson wigan are in a mess is the fact they are a poor team ,yet according to whelan thats also down to west ham ,if they were not at the bottom no one would complain , let the football do the talking and west ham are doing that better than most
nmonham, reading,
Firstly, I would like to add that Loan deals between clubs in the same division are wrong for exactly the reasons you have stated. But, as an Evertonian, I have mixed feelings over this. On one hand, I am annoyed that whilst challenging for europe, we would weaken our own side to play one of our biggest games of the season. On the other hand, I want to point out that each premiership place cost £485,000 this year and we may have 'gained £500,000 through the Rooney transfer" by getting beat by United but we lost £485,000 because we dropped a premiership place to 6th. There's also a big possibility we may finish 7th which would ensure we have lost just under £1 million. But your points are spot on over Ferguson and Man Uited. The rule needs to be changed where you cannot loan to a club in the same division. Simple rule and would end all this speculation over corruption.
mick, liverpool, merseyside
You are correct in saying that Iain Turner is inexperienced at Premiership level, but not only did he just come back from a very successful loan spell at Sheffield Wednesday where he had regular first team action, but David Moyes also had the option of Richard Wright, who IS experienced at Premier league level but has been sat on the bench for who knows how long, so the goalkeeping selection against United was not SAF hoping for an inexperienced understudy by refusing to let Tim Howard play, but it was a decision made by the Everton Manager to go with a young keeper who will be Evertons number two next year. On top of that, Tim Howard was loaned to Everton for a year, which doesn't run out until the end of the season, so technically, despite the permanant deal being signed in February he is still on loan. Man. Utd. are not the only club to refuse loaned out players to play against them in a season, Chelsea did this with Carlton Cole when he went on loan to Charlton.
Richard, Houston, Texas, USA
I agree that the transfer is not yet permanent, and Tim Howard is still technically a loan player, surely the transfer was agreed on February 14th but could not actually take place until the transfer window reopens in July?
Matthew Byrne, Formby, England
Interesting Martin but the point you made in the end is irrelevant due Howard being a Everton player since the begining of the year!
I just cant believe how West Ham have got away with no points taken off for playing unregistered players and they have even admitted it which says enough. So why on earth havent they had the book thrown at them its pathetic it shows half the problem with our game is the old boys who dont know anything apart from making sure they get good PR so they can take home as much money as possible.
The sooner changes are made right from the top the better for everyone especially our national game.
Oh yes one other thing is it because your hammer you are trying to make them that they've paid there dues.
nick, london,
Another point which needs to be made (if it hasn't already) is that the remaining Rooney money which would be owed to Everton should United win the league / FA Cup / Champions League will have been nulled during the signings of Phil neville and Tim Howard.
Phil Carlton, Manchester,
The deal that took place to bring Howard to Everton only becomes permanent on 01/07/07 meaning that he is is still on loan. This has been clear for some time and why has a Times journalist 'forgot' this point. If Howard had played and made a clanger which he is capable of e.g. Blackburn FA Cup, the knives would have been out for him saying 'its a conspirecy', oh please!!!!
Steven Jeffers, St Helens, England
Excellent Article!
The fact I think people are forgetting is that Howard signed a permenant contract in February meaning that the loan deal was ended and all the clauses within it. At that point he was no longer a Manchester United player and therefore they should have absolutely no say in whether he can or cant play against them. This is plainly the Premier League turning a blind eye just like they have done with West Ham over the Tevez farce. Do you think the Premier League have the proverbials to deduct points off Man Utd for breaking the exact same U18 law that West Ham did when this would almost certainly cost them the title? mmm ... somehow I think not!
Chris, Wirral,
Very interesting article. Clearly, United are just using the lack of ruling from the Premiership to their advantage, and on that I say why not? And I say that as an Everton supporter. If the rules don't cover such eventualities, then it's there to be used.
However, something surely has to change and clauses such as this should be banned. No-one can say that they don't influenece the course of either match or championship (in United's case). And for the record, I would rather United won the title than Chelsea.
United are a third party in that they have dictated the selection of players at another club - that's what third party means.
Ian Linsley, Doncaster,
My Understanding of the Howard Deal is totally different to your's.
Howard is still on loan until the end of the season but has signed a Pre-Contract which only begins at the end of the Season.
His 5 Year Deal will end at the end of the 2011 / 2012 Season.
He is still a Utd Player Officially.
I do take your points about the Loan System and Performance Related Bonuses tied into Sales Contracts.
If Players could only be loaned to Championship or Foreign Teams - This would not be a problem.
Also Performance Related Deals should only be allowed with Sales to Championship and Foreign Clubs.
Maybe we will now see Fulham or Wigan in the High Court instead of West Ham ?
Darren Cowzer, Dublin, Ireland
Well put together, Mr Samuel.
There's a few issues that I have questions about, that I hope you may answer.
Firstly, I would be interested to know if the Tim Howard loan deal included a clause giving Everton first option on the permanent signing of Howard after the conclusion of the loan deal, as is common with such deals. If there was such a clause then I don't see why Everton would have felt particularly threatened by potential rival bids. If that clause was absent then, frankly, Everton have themselves to blame. As you point out, either way Howard wasn't going to play so Everton could have played hardball, as a first option clause would have had them in the driving seat for his signature at the end of the season anyway.
Secondly, regarding the Rooney move. It's irresponsible to mention third party impacts on a football club without mentioning agents. Paul Stretford engineered a deal that well and truly had Everton over a barrel and he cashed in.
Gibbo, London,
The criticism that some have show towards Martin Samuels is understandable on some points such as the mention of Bolton and their use of the loan system which, in all honesty has no bearing on this discussion at all.
What I think he is trying to get across however is, that while West Ham did have two players owned by a third party and playing them illegaly under current rules, there is no doubt that there has been no influence on the club over the fielding of these players. Mascherano hardly had a kick while Tevez was left on the bench for some time after his arrival, proving the real owners had no influence.
The underlying problem with the loan system is that in West Hams case no influence was shown over the players in question whereas in the case of Tim Howard there IS clearly an influence from an outside party.
If West Ham were to be deducted points, surely Manchester United should also be deducted points.
The PL need to sort this sorry state of a loan system out.
Colin Scriven, Denia, Spain
I can see where you are coming from, Everton were very comfortable until that Iain Turner mistake. Now as a keen Evertonian, i was bemused at how a team of Manchester Uniteds stature could add this clause into Timmy Howards contract when the deal became finalised.
Now surely the men in the know at Manchester United took one look at the fixture list, and noticed how they had games both at Everton AND Chelsea. Two games that were must wins to take the championship to the line. Then what a way to go towards being 3 points better off than adding that clause to Howards contract, meaning that he couldn't play and bing, how it was put over the barrell.
These clauses need to be stamped out OR something radical has to be done to stop something like this happening again
Paul Box, Lancaster, England
An Evertonian here. It would be nice to think that such a conspiracy existed, but here is the lowdown as I understand it.
Howard's permanent deal is governed by the same rules as any other transfer. As the transfer window had closed, the initial loan agreement had to be adhered to.
Which makes the whole article pretty subjective.
I agree that loan deals need to be looked at, but as it stands, any club can do similar. If the club loaning the player don't like it, then they should forget the deal and look elsewhere.
Bob, Liverpool,
Great article but it is true that the 'third patry' comment towards united is very misleading, rather it is simply a lack of common sense from footballing authorities that allow clubs to abuse this neglegance and demean the game at the highest level.
It should be a given that clubs should not be allowed to loan players in the same division and the point that any club could loan goalkeepers to every team in the entire league reiterates this absured rule. Football is always going to suffer consequences when such vast sums of money are thrown into the equation and the clowns at the FA and FIFA should look to other sports and even countries for a better outlook.
Daniel, liverpool,
Very very poor written article.
every team has a right to prevent a player on loan from facing them. If say Ben Foster had played againts United in the FA cup and had Watford won it I'm sure United would not have taken too kindly to that.
Theres actually been a match where it has happened that a player from on loan from that team played and scored against them. Anybody remember the champions league in the 2003/2004 season? Fernando Morientes was on loan at Monaco then and played against his then contract owners Real madrid and if I remember correctly he scored the winning goal to put Real Madrid out of the champions league. Now tell me Real madrid must not have felt stupid for not putting a clause in the loan preventing him from playing against them.
Someone also mentioned something about mascherano having played for west ham in europe and being allowed to play for liverpool in europe. They were two different competitions. eufa cup and champions league.. end off
Sagar Shah, Canterbury, England
Excellent article!
I have been saying the same all season. United have had a clear advantage over Chelsea in resoect of playing against the reserve team keeper in 4 games!
A goalkeeper is the most imorrtant position on the pitch with mistakes leading directly to goals.
United were well beaten on Saturday until Turner's most basic mistake. This may have a huge bearing on the title's final destination.
Chris Tomkinson, Wilmslow,
A couple of years ago "fox in the box" Jeffers played on loan at Everton and set up an equalizing goal against Arsenal the team he was on loan from.
Has the loan rule been changed recently?
P Melia, Liverpool,
Well said bernie liverpool get away with far to much!
Ste, Merseyside,
This week it has become sickening how many people have taken to bringing the name of the "Premier League" into "Dis-Repute"
If Mr D Whelan and Mr P Jewel had concentrated more with "ON THE FIELD" rather than all Friday afternoon and evening and then Saturday morning, moaning, whinging they may not have been BEaten 3-0 by a BETTER TEAM on the day.
Play to the Whistle!
John Sheffield, Newton-le-Willows, England
Of course it changed the result : Howard in goal Everton probably win 3-0 as United get more and more demoralised - I was there - their head had gone and Ferfie was thinking of Milan: I'm not blaming United ,they operated within the rules -fair play to them - you miss the bigger point that the rules need to change to protect the integrity of the EPL. They need to act quickly to prevent this becoming a cancer.
Pete Sullivan, Formby, Merseyside
Everton agreed to sign Howard when the transfer window opens in June. Which means he is still officially on loan . The terms of a loan deal are negotiated at the start and the clubs decide whether the player can play in those games or not. In this case Howard couldnt play against Utd during his loan deal.
How you deem this to be 3rd party meddling I dont know. Loaning players is a good way of them gaining experience as Foster has done or clinching a transfer as Howard has done. It is perfectly acceptable for a team to not want one of their own players to be able to damage their season. When Jeffers was loaned to Everton 3 or 4 years ago, he came off the bench and set up our equaliser at Goodison. Those two points were huge for Arsenal that season, so its understandable that Utd would want to stop Howard playing. Everton will make £500k if Utd win the league, but 3 points on Saturday would have probably secured 5th place compared to 7th which is worth much more than 500k!!!
Rob, Everton Fc,
Loan players should not be able to play against their owners to protect the integrity of the game, i.e. if a loan goal keeper plays against the team who he is owned by he may not play as well as he should deliberately.
When there is no FA rule in place, i.e. in the Howard situation, Man U should not have been allowed to influence the inclusion of Howard (he had no motive to do badly).
In the absence of such rules governing player contracts Man U were legally able to do this and would have been daft not to.
Mike, Bedford, Beds
You cannot compare the Tevez deal to that loan agreement. Tim Howard would not have been allowed to play had it not become permanent anyway, it was to Evertons detriment for a start. West Ham should be docked points they fielded an ineligible player, neither Everton or Man Utd did this, and who is to say that Tim Howard may not have made a mistake, if you remember Turner made one or two saves before the error that Howard may not have dealt with as efficiently. You are fighting a hypothetical argument that you cant win, West Ham cheated for half a season playing Tevez and Mashcerono in a number of games, yet you try to defend this behaviour by comparing it to a legible player who was not allowed to play for one game? This is common place in the premiership, and within the rules, West Ham operated outside of these so the should face the consequences - the championship
Rob, Liverpool,
Correct me if I'm wrong but Howards deal didnt become permanent on Feb 14 as that was outwith the transfer window. The most that happen on that day was that the two clubs agreed to a permanent move at the end of the season, once the loan deal ran out.
Howard is still only a loan player at Everton, his permanent contract with Everton doesnt start till June presumably.Therefore he was still contracted to Man U and who possibly still pay some of his wages.
Would the Premierships integrity be upheld if Everton fielded a player who was still contracted to Man U in such an important game?
seems like lazy journalism to me.
Dylan, Dumbarton, Scotland
Sounds like someone is a bitter west ham or chelea fan, we lost that game to man utd because we played to negative in the second half.
mark, birkenhead,
its not a premier league rule. the club can choose.kirkland for wigan against liverpool whilst on loan anyone.
i am more amazed that again rules dont apply to liverpool.not only do we forget the 7 appearances for west ham ,by javier but we forget he played in europe for them. but never mind liverpool , we'll allow him to play and be your man of the match , driving you to a european cup final.
bernie, bognor regis,
Utter load of tosh! Can you really expect us to believe that if Howard had played and Turner hadnt United would have lost the game? I think its a standard clause in many players contract that they dont play against their former employers...as they tend to outperfom themselves.
I remember a similar case of this happening when an ex manutd player scored against united to deny them the title.
Its anothe case of jealousy of man utd assets
simon, harpenden,
Like anyone with a brain would realise, the so called Loan system undoubtedly IS influencing things from a third party perspective.. for the premiership NOt to address this whilst fining the hammers so heavily is at, very least hypocritcal. we either have to accept third party influence or NEVER allow loans between teams playing in the same division. the premier leage also has alot to answer to making this judgement so late in the season. they KNEW the situation months and months ago, What gross incompetence! and to make the Judgement with no evidence form the key players Aldridge, duxbury and Brown seems totally unprofessional! glad they are not on our law courts!!
Gary, sudbury, Suffolk,
The ABU brigade are out today eh? Where are the complaints when Chelsea and Arsenal loan out players to other premiership clubs? Oh I forgot, that doesn't count because it's "get at United" time again! Is it United's fault that Everton wouldn't take the risk and buy Howard outright without taking him for a test drive first? I know it shouldn't be allowed but United are not breaking the rules. The rules need changing but don't blame United for them. It's always been the southern rules that us northern teams have to play by. Is it our fault they worked against you for a change?
Billy B, Manchester, England
A fair piece from a West Ham fan until he starts bringing uo their 2003 relegation. I don't know how he can compare Bolton loaning players from Real Madrid and PSG, with Man Utd basically dictating they play against understudy goalkeepers. Or West Ham's flouting of the rules.
If Bolton win at West Ham on Saturday and effectively relegate them, the Premier League should send them a thank you card for doing what they should have done in the first place.
Martin, Leeds,
its a premier league rule that players on loan cannot play against the club they are from.
be interesting to see how you can blame united for that.
steve, manchester,
Great piece, my hat off to you sir.
Also, and I am as bemussed as anyone, but how on earth was a third part owned palyer then allowed to play for a 4th club in the same season, and given the green light by all authorities, No one has answered this. The powers to be allowed javier to move from West Ham to Liverpool.
graham parker, singapore, singapore
A great article, once again.
The whole situation with Man Utd, Everton and Watford has been irritating me for weeks (particularly around the FA cup semi-final) and I couldn't believe then that although journalists were mentioning the fact that Foster couldn't play, no-one seemed prepared to criticise the system.
I know an argument for this would be that the rules are the same for everyone, and any club could loan out their players and instigate such clauses to avoid facing them, but only clubs of the size of United, Chelsea, Liverpool,etc., are able to afford to have players of such quality to make a substantial difference available for loan.
Surely this could easily be solved by the FA insisting that, if a club is prepared to loan a player out, there is no clause dictating team selection? Except perhaps in cup matches, so that the player is not cup-tied and these are matches that must have a definite outcome and could be more liable to fixing?
Or are they too scared of the clubs?
Graeme, Bath, Somerset
It would have been a far worse situation had Howard or Foster been allowed to play against United. In the case of a goalkeeper it would be utterly impossible for that to happen. If Howard had made a mistake resulting in a United goal the suspicion would be even more intense.
Ultimately, Howard signed for Everton outside the transfer window. United were under no obligation to sell him; the original loan was season-long, so it was already going to be the case that Howard would be unable to play against us. It's also not strictly true that Everton were forced to play an inexperienced and apparently poor understudy; they had a fully-fit and experienced Richard Wright available.
There's no real alternative to the way the loan system currently works. You could either stop loans altogether, which would hardly have benefitted Watford or Everton, or you can allow loans on the basis that players (and especially goalkeepers) canot play against the club who owns them.
Jonathan Headington, Manchester,
Thank you for speaking out against this appalling loan system, which also allows the richer clubs to sign players not immediately needed in order to prevent rival clubs from signing them - a great help in polarising the league in favour of the biggest clubs.
The power of the rich clubs will prevent the system from changing in England, but really the practice of loans should be outlawed by FIFA rather than merely locally by the Premier League or FA.
JPL, Guildford,
"Howard was on loan from United to Everton this season, but on February 14 his move became permanent."
The transfer window closed on January 31 - therefore the permanent move does not take effect until the window re-opens in the summer. Howard couldn't play because he is still on loan. End of.
Joe, Everton,
Except that it's against the PL rules for a player on loan to play against the team that owns his registration. So, that undermines the entire article. Disappointing from the 'Football Writer of the Year'.
Galileo, London,
West Ham went down last time because Bolton had a better team than the Hammers. Simple as that. Using Bolton as an example in this article renders the whole piece laughable.
By the way, is Martin Samuel getting bigger or is it my monitor?
Andy, Cockermouth, Cumbria
good points, i heard some of these on sunday morning (jimmy hill).
maybe Tim Howard's deal is permenant AFTER the loan, therefore the loan deal and agreement is still valid. But i think the clubs know what they are getting themselves into regarding loan deals. And i think the same points would be raised had Ben Foster played against United in the semi-final, against the club that OWNS him. What frame of mind would Foster be in knowing that if he has a blinder against United, his owners could suffer?
The loan system works for teams with limited finances, like Watford, and in some way, Everton, and in the current system, i think everyone wins.
I also agree that the loan system may be preventing english/british youth coming through. I like the way United and Arsenal have loaned their players to Birmingham and Sunderland, the players/teams have been successful and its a good stepping stone.
The only option i think is new rules to ensure that at least 5 brits/irish play in each team.
D Sohal, Hayes, Middx
Fantastic article Martin.
Keep on fighting the powers that be, without fear of criticism - there are a lot of us out here who think this whole thing stinks too.
Jeremy, Farnham,
Always United's fault isn't it?
Larry Johnson, Bolton, UK
It is my understanding that it is the FA that have legislated that on loan players cannot ply against the loaning club. A measure, I assume, employed to avoid potential conflicts of interest. The only difference in the case of Tim Howard is that Everton have an agreement to buy him which Manchester United insisted came into place once the loan agreement ended thus ensuring he wouldn't play against them. This doesn't strike me as machiavellian. If the Toffees had decided not to buy him there would be no issue and Manchester United are well within their rights to request that the original agreement be honoured
James, London, UK
Am I missing something or are have these commentators missed the point and are playing with words? They object that in the caseof Everton/Man Utd there is no "Third Party". But is there only a 'third party' in the West Ham case because Teves and Macherano were, repectively, 'owned' by two companies? What do we mean by third party? Surely the point of Rule U18 is to prevent any other parties influencing the team? If so, Martin is absolutley correct that there is an anomaly. Instead of playing with words we should be looking at the reason behind Rule U18 and looking for equivalencies.
Terry Fletcher, Newcastle,
I am a United fan, but i totally agree with the analysis of Saturday's game - the keeper was poor and contributed to Everton's collapse. Howard, on the other hand, is a keeper who is capable of pulling off saves to keep his team in the match. Much as I enjoyed watching Henrik Larrson earlier in the season, I also feel this arrangement was slightly dodgy.
Loans should only be permitted from a team in a higher league to a lower league team from the same country (with an exception for players under 23 on a season-long basis).
Whether this would be compatible with European law is a different matter.
Mike, London,
I read this article after reading another on a rival's site which claimed that all he had lazily done was to regurgitate what was in the report and combine it with the thoughts of West Ham's relegarion rivals, and that.this was an excellent tilt on last Friday's ruling.
What total rubbish.
How Martin Samuel can say that Manchester Utd were a 'third party influence' on their game because of them inserting contractual clauses between two consenting parties is utter nonsense. No matter how hand-tied Evertone may have felt by Man Utd's demands, they did, nevertheless, sign the contract and as such agreed to them. No-one forced them to do so.
If, has been said elsewhere, that Mr Samuels is a Hammers fan, he has simply tried -and failed - to throw another smokescreen over the sorry, mucky events surrounding his own club.
Colin Gilham, Welling, Kent
Always United's fault isn't it?
Larry Johnson, Bolton, UK
What an excellent article. A cut above the blustering that has passed for journalism in most newspapers covering this issue. I thought the press had given up using facts.
Craig , London,
With Everton chasing a UEFA cup spot but not yet having clinched it, there's no way they'd have voluntarily thrown this game. Sorry. That I don't buy. Because of this loss to Manchester United, the UEFA race now goes down to the last day of the season in all probability. This assertion is the most absurd thing I've seen in a long time, and frankly makes me question the story. And I'm a Liverpool fan . . . .
Daniel, Chicago, USA
An excellent article, but the reason why there are are loans within the FAPL is because of the imbalances in financial strength between the biggest clubs and the rest. The Big teams can farm out players to keep them match fit, and the smaller teams get good players they could not afford to buy . (although sometimes, they get Carlton Cole :-))You don't get Bayern Munich lending their players to Nurnberg, because the Bundesliga is much better balanced (and fairly priced, and allowing standing and drinking beer, etc, etc)
Richard Hunt, Prague, Czech Republic
Very well written article.
I'm glad somebody else spotted this ridiculous situation.
Happy Hammer, Essex, UK
I think Phil Neville would have every reason to be unhappy with a paragraph in that. If there is no suggestion of Neville doing anything improper other than being a goat for scoring in his own net - why use it in a article that wonders about conspiracy in the loan system - which Neville is no part of because of the fact that he was bought in full by Everton. other than that - on the ball as usual. The loan system is a disgrace
Bob, Belfast, Ireland
Now, Martin, we are all aware of your strong affinity with West Ham United and it shines through in your writing that you are a knowledgable and passionatte football man. However, on occasion, this causes you to be too objective and downright bias in your thoughts and in the writing. There is no connection between Bolton Wanderers loaning players from other leagues abroad and Manchester United and others loaning out players to clubs in the same division and then stopping them playing aginst them. The fact that Campo et al were foreign and stayed up and Joe Cole et al were English went down is aslo irrelevant. To use the Bolton situation as a reason as to why West Ham should have no guilt over the Tevez and Masc' affair is wrong and self serving. You have long held barely disguised grievances toward Bolton and Allardyce. One more thing, Allardyce is not a 'fine' manager. He is an outstanding one. Fine means alright. It means okay.
richard, nantwich, england
The use of the term third party is highly misleading and inaccurate. I know that you use it in order to draw parallels to two seperate cases: west ham and the Everton - Man. United match. However, with regard to the latter there are only TWO contracting parties. Tim Howard is an excellent goalkeeper who Everton were free to sign, illustrated by their desire to make the move permanent and beat off competion. It is common place that you should not be able to use another team's players in a match against them for fear of him influencing the game, and bringing it into disripute.
It is the role of the manager receiving the loan to ensure their second choice keeper is capable enough to play 2 games this season. Ian Turner has played exceptionally for shef w, and was unfortunate to make those mistakes. don't overlook the young british loan talent that secured promotion for watford (Forster) and Sunderland (Evans and Simpson). I expect such sensationalism from the Mail not the Times.
Piers French, Sheffield,
'On Saturday, when Manchester United played at Goodison Park in a match that is looked upon as definitive in the running of the title race, Tim Howard, the Everton goalkeeper, could not play because of an agreement between the clubs. And if that is not a third party influencing the policies and performance of a team, what is?'
There are only two parties involved Man Utd and Everton, therefore there isn't a third party inluencing the policies. If part of Howard's loan deal was that he couldn't play against Chelsea for example, then that would amount to a third party influence.
toney scott, Birmingham,
Martin, another great piece, i watched Jimmy Hill' sshow on sunday so i herad you talk about it. I agree this system has to be looked cos Man U's season has greatly been helped bythe fact that they know that against Watford and Everton they are going tp be facing the reserve keepers, i know its over a whole season that determines the title but it sure helps if you consider the form of Foster and Howard an dthen the ball that Turner dropped!
As for Neville's goal well..........it did cross my mind!!!!
Manny, London,