Heinze Loses Appeal

[chrispy]

Gabriel Heinze has lost his attempt to force Manchester United to let him join Liverpool at a Premier League tribunal.

Info from Football 365.

And the following from Soccernet :-

Gabriel Heinze has lost his battle to force Manchester United to sell him to Liverpool.

A two-day Premier League inquiry has decided that a letter, signed by David Gill confirming a sum (£6.8million) at which United would be willing to sell, did not constitute a definitive undertaking from the Old Trafford outfit to offload the player.

The 29-year-old Argentina international contended that once Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez had matched the figure stated, he should be allowed to become the first player to move from United to Anfield since Phil Chisnal in 1962.

'The Premier League Board appointed panel have heard submissions of evidence from both parties and has ruled to dismiss the player's case,' said a Premier League statement.

[RoadEnd]

The hearing concluded that the written letter Heinze possessed "was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer".

[Pablo]

This will drag on again im sure, no doubt he will take this to UEFA.

This represents Fergies only win of the season so far

[Parm]

ah **** it, wasnt too fussed about him vcoming anyway, never understood the fuss that was being made about him/

[-V-]

Apparently the letter only agreed to enter negotiations if the fee was offered.

In other words they told him to get a club to offer that amount and then they would talk to the bidding club.

Bit stupid on our part and Heinze's if thats the case

[Shaggy]

This represents Fergies only win of the season so far

Two Manc ****s have just come steaming over to my desk giving it the big one and I responded with EXACTLY that!

"First win of the season that, innit fellas?"

Shut them right up.

[sean_lfc]

Either way, it's a pile of horse****. Restriction of trade/blahblahblah, they could even take this to the European Courts, but what's the point? I'd be interested to hear Rafa's stance on this whole shebang. Heinze would have fit in perfectly not just for on the pitch, but off the pitch also (such as Pellegrino, albeit his being a poorer example due to actual on the pitch performances).

Wonder what'll happen now.

[Jayesh87]

I hope we go for Chiellini now

[Los Rojos]

Wonder what'll happen now.

I'd like to think Rafa would look at an alternative now to strengthen our limited cover at CB (Hyypia).

[Darth Marty]

didnt rafa say he didnt have alternatives?

[fred_plasticine]

i for one am glad he won't join us. he had a decent first season but he's a liability at the back.

[sean_lfc]

didnt rafa say he didnt have alternatives?

That's how it was portrayed, maybe he doesn't want to get an alternative because Heinze would have fit the bill perfectly (LB/CB; getting Insua up to speed etc.)?

A **** of a verdict by the 'Panel' (useless ****s). Lawyers and people who 'word things right' are ***** in my opinion.

[Havors]

I hope he takes the arse holes to the european human rights courts. They have no right to dictate what a player does with his career/life.

You really think in any other job your current employer could prevent you from taking a job somewhere else? Why should it be any different for footballers?

Seems like the scum are pretty tight with the premier league powers that be. First the tevez saga and now this. Why dont they just come out and sponsor utd or something? :

[Los Rojos]

didnt rafa say he didnt have alternatives?

I think he said something like that. I just think we're short at the back for cover and I'd be surprised if there isn't a back-up plan, especially with Paletta moving out on loan.

I've never seen Arbeloa play Centre Half so I can't comment on his suitability in that position.

[StevieG08]

I think if Heinze took this to the euro courts it would have the same effect as the Bosman ruling, clubs can't tell players they are surplus to requirement but then dictate which club they move too. Would any of us let our employers tell us we were no longer required but we couldn't go to a rival firm to work but had to move abroad instead