33 my arse

[shoot_ffs]

ok i was bored so checked the players out on planetfootball.

the FA said 33 have been used by spurs in the first team. I checked all the games including the bitter cup defeats.

I found 23 players who had played or come on as sub. Included in that are naybet, jackson, reid and barnard. Also for the west ham game we had king, jenas, stalteri and mido injured.

bench sitters who haven't played for us this year were kanoute and pamarot.

the following players have left:
edman
kanoute
mendes
davis
brown
pamarot
rasaik
defendi

with loanees

halfredsson
hamdaoui
yeates
o hara
ziegler
routledge (who did play for us)
fulop
ifil

there were 3 other players in the reserves who could be expected to play or have played first team footy:

bunjy, marney and ghaly.

so if we say we had a working 1st team squad of 26 (23 played and the above 3 reserves), from that 26:
atleast 4 were injured on the day
7 have left
routledge is on loan. (it may have been possible to recall him from pompey)
add to that doubts about the fitness of ghaly, bunjy, naybet and all reserve players as they played during the week.

You can see fom that just how thin our squad was, and that the 17 quoted must have included players who haven't played first team footy.

Then there's the 6 to 10 that were ill and you can see why it was such a farce. How can the FA expect us to play like that?

[Houdini logic]

i'm sure if you're right, someone at the club will pick up of it!
I personally got distracted when reading the players we have used.. (By a piece of blue tack)

[Welsh Spur]

Yeah I read something earlier, so the "33 players" is obviously something Dein concocted in 5 minutes in his despairing panic upon learning of the fantastic letter Levy wrote...

[spurs61]

This whole situation stinks. I have just read the FA’s letter and argument and find it nonsensical. What follows is rather long winded so I apologise in advance;


The attitude of "we should just keep quite" is one which the FA have relied upon for decades to maintain its' control over domestic football. No other industry in the world would allow the vice Chairman of one organisation to sit on the panel of it's governing body. Essentially it is like a prisoner conducting his own parole hearing.

There is a very recent and confirmed case of corruption at the highest level of the game, see the attached article.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-5810117,00.html

Anyone who has read the outstanding book "Broken Dreams" by Tom Bower will tell you that corruption in British football is rife, it's just that the press and fans don't want to know about it. Bower's book dedicates an entire chapter to Harry Redknapp and how many court injunctions were made against the book? None.

The fact of the matter is that Levy's approach to the situation was absolutely correct, at no time has the club made any allegations about foul play, instead they chose to go through the correct and proper route of demanding a written explanation of the FA's decision. In fact whilst Levy's letter addressed all the facts in a polite and dignified manner, I find the FA's reply provocative and insensitive.

"As always, the Board can only deal with the facts on an individual basis and deal with any situation as and when presented. All those directly involved on the day acted in the utmost good faith and with due care in what were unusual circumstances." - Really? If the FA acted in good faith then why was the CEO making the decision from our nearest rival's ground form the comfort of a hospitality suite?

"The Board of the Premier League, as you might expect, were spread around all parts of the country on the last day of the season. The time frame during which the defining conversations took place was between 11.00am and 1.15pm." - If this is the case then why does the FA expect the Club to be able to seek alternative players of whom the Club had no knowledge of their whereabouts.

"As always, the Premier League acknowledged your position and promised it would make a proper assessment but in order to do so, the General Secretary, Mike Foster, would need to be contacted. This area of the Premier League’s role is Mike’s responsibility and his experience in these matters since the League’s inception in 1992 is well known to all Clubs. The Board look to his wisdom and counsel on all such matters. Jane Purdon, the Premier League Company Secretary, volunteered to go to the team hotel." - So in other words no one else on the Board is qualified to make this decision, what can they do then. The FA essentially admit that they sent a person to make an assessment with no qualification or experience to do so, maybe I should send my Company Secretary to the High Court next time I'm required?!

"1) It was satisfied that the following significant facts pertained:

· 6 players had been confirmed as having suffered from either sickness and/or diarrhoea (S & D) that morning

· 2 other players had felt unwell but had not suffered from S & D

(These facts were established by Jane Purdon in consultation with the THFC Doctor)

· 17 players had been at the team hotel overnight

· 3 other registered players had been contacted by THFC and were able to make themselves available

· The match was due to take place at West Ham United (“WHU”) – geographically close enough to Tottenham and its vicinity so as not to prevent other players being called upon." - OK, I know these guys aren't stupid so why can't they count. Even if the above were correct it would mean that of the 17 players we had eight were ill, leaving 9 players. Nine plus 3 is twelve, which is insufficient to commence a game of association football.

"2) Following a full discussion between all members of the Premier League Board and Mike Foster, we decided that the game should not be postponed. To do so would be inappropriate given past application of Premier League Rules and would lead to future problems for the Premier League if Clubs deemed these circumstances or similar to be worthy of postponement.

3) The appropriate course of action, having given due consideration to the facts, was to not postpone the game and to inform THFC that it would be their decision as to whether or not they fulfilled the fixture." - In other words the Arsenal vice-Chairman had a decisive say in this matter, is this not the clearest conflict of interest ever seen? I am certain that no other member of the Board would have had a deep rooted conviction regarding this scenario as it is unprecedented and surely required a great deal of thought, not to mention common sense.

"You asked what the consequences would be if THFC failed to fulfil the fixture. I said that I could not pre-judge or advise. An independent commission would be convened to consider the facts and clearly THFC could plead mitigating circumstances. However this was one of the most serious of offences and John Alexander could advise on what has happened in the past, though, of course, all cases were different and based on their own facts." - In other words the club was blackmailed into playing. What the FA basically said is that the decision was the clubs, they could not advise the club as to any possible outcome but made a thinly veiled warning that the club would be penalised.

"On the basis of this, THFC obviously undertook your own assessment of the facts and reached your own decision." - Really? See above point.

"THFC then asked the Premier League what our attitude would be to a delayed kick off. The Premier League Board reacted with empathy but needed to consider all the facts." - So by their own admission a decision was delayed until after 13:00 which was the time the players coach was due to leave for Upton Park essentially ensuring that the Club did NOT have the option of delaying the game. If the FA had said no to a two hour delay (which was useless anyway) the players would have had to travel to the ground and warm up for the game without any preparation time.

"The Premier League appointed doctor we sent to the hotel arrived after the team bus left for Upton Park. However Jane Purdon, our representative at the hotel, had already relayed to the Board in detail the medical opinion of the THFC Doctor, Charlotte Cowie. The Board accepted her professional opinion and had no reason to dispute it. The Premier League-appointed Doctor’s opinion therefore was not needed." - So as I understand this, the FA failed to fulfil it's obligation and relied upon the opinion of the Spurs doctor who confirmed that the players were to ill to play. The FA Board then ignored the medical advice of a trained medical professional over the opinion of, essentially, an FA lackey. This also calls into the question whether Spurs were given a fair hearing in the first place, as there was no independent verification of the players’ health.

" With respect to other matters that you do not fully understand, I set off to travel to Highbury for a pre-arranged end-of-season interview with Sky Sports. I arrived at 2.00pm having travelled 111 miles from the West Country. The earliest I could have arrived at your team hotel was 2.00pm, even if I had travelled directly there on approaching west London. I had already confirmed with John Alexander that the team bus was leaving at 1.15pm and so it would have been pointless to go there. The Premier League made two official statements via its press office to PA concerning the situation. I only referred to the contents of those statements as part of a pre-planned review of the season on Sky Sports. This was not the chosen method of conveying the decision. For your information, the Sky Sports interview took place 40 minutes after your own Press Office had confirmed you were playing the game as scheduled at 3.00pm.
" - OK, fair enough, he's not Superman. However did this really mean that it was necessary to make the announcement pitch side at Highbury or would it have been more appropriate for a comment to be made from the FA's offices in Soho?

"We of course realise that for THFC a feeling of unfairness at the ill fated events of last Sunday will linger but trust that you will put this behind you and concentrate on domestic and UEFA Cup success next season." - Could he be any more sarcastic? Reading between the lines this says "stop whinging and spend more time concentrating on winning trophies and think yourself lucky that you're in Europe anyway"

As I said, the whole thing stinks and the FA's response is akin to a small boy putting his finger in his ears to drown out his nagging parents.

[Welsh Spur]

I smell shit. Bullshit. Basically what's happened is that a fair decision was not made due to the fact that no-one at the FA had the balls to sort out the situation properly. Dein's involvement casts a shadow over the whole thing. They were too scared to rock the boat by delayin the end-of the season, to ensure a fair outcome in the battle for fourth, and prolonging what would have been a sweat for Arsenal, having moved into fourth and then waiting for our result as well as trying to prepare for next week's CL Thrashing-sorry, i mean final. Oops!

[DonJolSpurano]

[I]" With respect to other matters that you do not fully understand, I set off to travel to Highbury for a pre-arranged end-of-season interview with Sky Sports.

does no-one else feel that this particular comment demonstrates a gross level of arrogance and unprofessionalism.

why cant these 'other matters' be made clear to mr levy in the course of the statement?

why does mr dein...sorry, scudamore...feel it necessary to patronise him?

[Welsh Spur]

If they delayed, and we'd still lost, we couldnt complain and there'd be no problem. but we'd have had better chance of winning, so they took the safe option, or rather Dein's orders, and blackmailed us into playing while disadvantaged. Did they really think there wouldnt be a backlash?

[spurs61]

does no-one else feel that this particular comment demonstrates a gross level of arrogance and unprofessionalism.

why cant these 'other matters' be made clear to mr levy in the course of the statement?

why does mr dein...sorry, scudamore...feel it necessary to patronise him?

Exactly, nice to see the monkeys who run our national sport are blessed with professionalism and manners, or is that just our Chairman?

[DonJolSpurano]

Exactly, nice to see the monkeys who run our national sport are blessed with professionalism and manners, or is that just our Chairman?

its disgusting. the whole tone of the reply to levy was just plainly underhand. it made me feel uncomfortable reading it as you could almost feel the disgust with which it was being written.

its as if they where slapping levys wrist for even attempting to argue with them.

levy has played this very cleverly though. he made his letter available to the public domain and stuck within the paramters of fairness, good mannes and professionalism. he neither accused or speculated on anyone's actions, although it does seem apparent a slight suggestion as to WHO exactly made the decision. all he has done was point out the FAPLs inconsistencies over the matter.

now with this reply, his loaded gun has some heavy ammunition which can be used to levy and THFCs advantage. i expect we havenmt heard the last of this and could soon see a bit of money coming our way!

[Welsh Spur]

It'll be a good laugh watchin you cry when Henry signs for Barcelona!

[spurs61]

Leave this to me gentlemen;

Piss off you sad pathetic kiddy fiddler. do you really think we care what a bunch of inarticulate, badly educated morons think?

Why don't you all take a leaf out of your chairman's (Hill-Wood, who is a gentleman) book and keep your irrelevant mouths shut. You support a team which is only succesful due to the duplicity of your vice Chairman and the vile rantings of your disgusting manager and star striker. The only other decent part about yoour club were the lovely art-deco stadium which your board have chosen to destroy for the sake of more money. I take it all the Goons will be cheering France at the world cup as clearly you and your club have no regard for the national game.