Tim Howard and Man Utd

[Graz]

Kinda off the topic, but it is a LCFC related question.

Manchester United tried to break Premier League rules by inserting a written clause in his contract that Tim Howard could not play against them this season upon signing for Everton. (Guardian, Daily Telegraph)

United apparently stopped Howard from playing against them, but weren't allowed to do so because Howard's loan had been made permanent.

This got me thinking though, in our relegation season, am I right in thinking that when we signed Dabizas from Newcastle he didn't play against them because Newcastle said he couldn't?
I know it's meaningless now, but if that's the case then why wasn't it brought up at the time? Or is it a new rule?

 

[Hazzman]

Howey wasnt allowed to play for Bolton when we sold him.

This Howard case is all a load of cobblers created by the press.

Howard had a loan deal for a season - Man U have every right to stop him playing against his feeder club. It was quite possibly a gentlemen's agreement anyway - just like the Howey and Dabizas' case. Nothing in print to suggest he shouldnt play, just the managers making an agreement.

Everton agreed a deal in FEBRUARY to sign him next season. The actual transfer wouldnt go through till June. He's Man United property till June.

 

[Han]

I thought Dabizas was only on loan for the half season he was with us in the Premiership.

We signed him at the end of the season?

 

[Darth Vodka]

it was a gentleman's agreement

qv: Ben Foster

i think Man Utd are gonna sign 20 keepers next season and loan them all out to prem clubs

:icon_roll

 

[Graz]

Howey wasnt allowed to play for Bolton when we sold him.

This Howard case is all a load of cobblers created by the press.

Howard had a loan deal for a season - Man U have every right to stop him playing against his feeder club. It was quite possibly a gentlemen's agreement anyway - just like the Howey and Dabizas' case. Nothing in print to suggest he shouldnt play, just the managers making an agreement.

Everton agreed a deal in FEBRUARY to sign him next season. The actual transfer wouldnt go through till June. He's Man United property till June.

Apparently Howard's deal is already permanent. Loans can be made permanent at any time, and therefore what the fuss is about I think.

That's what I saw it as though, just an agreement to make the transfer smoother, rather than a contractual obligation.

 

[fludie]

Yeh he has got a permanent deal.

 

[Fox Fan]

This is a form of cheating and I think everyone knows it.

If the big clubs loan out their players, who then can't play against them then they have a better cahnce of picking up points against lower opposition.

TThis was proved by the Man U match vs Everton when that stand in keeper made a mssive rik which Howard almost certinally wouldn't have.

 

[fcukcov]

This is a form of cheating and I think everyone knows it.

If the big clubs loan out their players, who then can't play against them then they have a better cahnce of picking up points against lower opposition.

TThis was proved by the Man U match vs Everton when that stand in keeper made a mssive rik which Howard almost certinally wouldn't have.

Im sorry but this bollox howard could quite easily have made the same cock up as the stand in did. The reason they don’t want him playing against them is if he let 4 in every ****er in the land would be on their forums claiming they had cheated by allowing him to play

 

[Hazzman]

This is a form of cheating and I think everyone knows it.

If the big clubs loan out their players, who then can't play against them then they have a better cahnce of picking up points against lower opposition.

TThis was proved by the Man U match vs Everton when that stand in keeper made a mssive rik which Howard almost certinally wouldn't have.

If it was a form of cheating, I am sure Everton or Chelsea would have kicked up a fuss, both who at the time or currently still have something to play for. I suspect it was nothing more than a gentlemen's agreement between managers.

Real cheating would be allowing Howard to play and then letting in 4.....

 

[fcukcov]

I think we are saying the same thing hazzer.

 

[lee7]

Howey wasnt allowed to play for Bolton when we sold him.

didn't we get rid of howey because he turned up to a game pi**ed

 

[Fox Fan]

Im sorry but this bollox howard could quite easily have made the same cock up as the stand in did. The reason they don’t want him playing against them is if he let 4 in every ****er in the land would be on their forums claiming they had cheated by allowing him to play

Come on - Howard could have made that Cock up - but its much less likey to happen with him in goal. Howard is a better keeper and thats why he's playing in the Premiership and that GK was on loan at Sheff Wed. Simple.

 

[fcukcov]

Come on - Howard could have made that Cock up - but its much less likey to happen with him in goal. Howard is a better keeper and thats why he's playing in the Premiership and that GK was on loan at Sheff Wed. Simple.

So if howard had played and let 4 in you wouldn’t have been shouting fix?

 

[Fox Fan]

didn't we get rid of howey because he turned up to a game pi**ed

Man city I think it was. If I recall he kept getting 'injusred' just before a couple of games.

 

[Fox Fan]

So if howard had played and let 4 in you wouldn’t have been shouting fix?

Obviously it depends on the circumstances - if they had all 'slipped through his fingers' then Yes I probably would have. But again that's highly unlikely.

If Chelsea loan out 5 good players to Premiership clubs - who can't play against them BUT CAN PLAY AGAINST MAN U, then that gives Chelsea an unfair advantage. Surely you must agree with that?

 

[Hazzman]

didn't we get rid of howey because he turned up to a game pi**ed

Man city I think it was. If I recall he kept getting 'injusred' just before a couple of games.

We bombed Howey out for being a pisshead full stop.

The Man City game, I thought that was Eliott returning from injury went for a drink in the afternoon but the late pull-out of one player meant Elliott on the bench. More or less ended his City career. Spent all the first half sobering up running up and down the touchline.

The other Man City games that season - Howey played in the 3-0 victory at CoMS and he was sold in time for 3 others.