Tag Archives: written

FIFA fine Roy Hodgson"s agent after breaching regulations when bringing Heurelho Gomes to Spurs

Hodgson's agent fined by FIFA after breach of rules to bring Gomes to Spurs

By
Martin Ziegler, Press Association

PUBLISHED:

15:33 GMT, 8 February 2013

|

UPDATED:

16:10 GMT, 8 February 2013

Roy Hodgson's agent has been fined and warned by FIFA for breaking regulations over the transfer of goalkeeper Heurelho Gomes to Tottenham.

Leon Angel, who is based in London, was found guilty of two breaches of the regulations and fined 4,800.

Hodgson negotiated his England contract with the Football Association but Angel has carried out accountancy work with him previously.

The deal to take Heurelho Gomes from PSV was under scrutiny

Wrongdoing: The deal to take Heurelho Gomes from PSV was under scrutiny

The violations related to Gomes' move from PSV Eindhoven in July 2008 and was referred by the FA to FIFA in June 2011.

FIFA said in a statement: 'FIFA also informed Mr Angel that a further breach of the players' agents regulations will result in more severe sanctions to be determined by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, which can lead to a suspension or even a withdrawal of the players' agent licence.'

The first regulation breached refers to having a 'relevant written representation contract with that player or club', and the second requires that 'every players' agent shall ensure that his name, signature and the name of his client appear in any contracts resulting from transactions in which he is involved'.

Angel insists however that it was an administrative oversight by a Brazilian agent, and that he was not responsible for the paperwork.

He told Press Association Sport: 'It is a technical breach on an administrative matter and we are appealing against it to CAS.

'It's actually nothing to do with us – the transfer was performed by a Brazilian agent who did not fill in a form.'

Gomes has faced many highs and lows in his time at Tottenham

Happy Gomes has faced many highs and lows in his time at Tottenham

Marvin Sordell: Six released on bail over offensive banner

Six Millwall fans arrested over 'Sordell is a c***' banner are released on police bail

|

UPDATED:

10:34 GMT, 12 November 2012

Six football fans arrested after an offensive banner was unfurled at Millwall have all been released on bail.

A sign directed at Bolton striker Marvin Sordell, who was racially abused by one of the club's fans last month, was unveiled at The Den during the Lions' 2-1 win against Derby in the npower Championship on Saturday.

The banner, which read 'Sordell is a c***', related to complaints made by Sordell after he was abused by fans while warming up for a match on October 6, leading to a 13-year-old boy being banned from Millwall's ground.

Target: Bolton's Marvin Sordell

Target: Bolton's Marvin Sordell

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said
six men were arrested on suspicion of public order offences and have
been bailed until early December.

The banner on display was swiftly removed by Millwall staff.

The club has so far refused to
comment on the issue, and assistant manager Joe Gallen – standing in for
Lions manager Kenny Jackett, who missed the game with flu – also opted
not to discuss the matter.

Sordell took to Twitter after the
Millwall match last month to claim that he and team-mates Lee
Chung-yong, Darren Pratley and Benik Afobe were subjected to racist
taunts.

That sparked an investigation led by
both clubs and last week Millwall confirmed the boy in question admitted
to abusing Sordell and subsequently issued a written apology which the
player accepted.

Given his age, Millwall have not
imposed a life ban on the youngster and offered him a place on a
Millwall for All' educational programme 'in the hope that we can change
his outlook on equality, racism and life in general'.

Controversy: A Fan has been banned from ground over Sordell abuse

Controversy: A Fan has been banned from ground over Sordell abuse

Steven Shingler must play for Wales not Scotland, rule IRB

Scottish hopes dashed as IRB rule promising back Shingler can only play for Wales

|

UPDATED:

19:27 GMT, 8 March 2012

Steven Shingler remains tied to Wales and ineligible for Scotland – barring an unlikely set of circumstances – following an International Rugby Board ruling on his case.

The Swansea-born fly-half or centre was included in Scotland head coach Andy Robinson's provisional squad for the RBS 6 Nations, sparking an investigation into his eligibility.

The Scottish Rugby Union believed the 20-year-old London Irish player qualified through his Dumfries-born mother, but the Welsh Rugby Union contended Shingler was tied to them having played for their Under 20s side against France in 2011, despite having not signed a declaration to that effect.

Putting the boot in: Steven Shingler in action for London Irish

Putting the boot in: Steven Shingler in action for London Irish

It was ruled Shingler is eligible only for Wales but the eligibility criteria could be overhauled by the IRB council in May, excluding Under 20 teams from being a capturing team.

The IRB council can overturn decisions by the regulations committee and though any new law would not be applied retroactively, Shingler's case arose during the review on eligibility launched in April 2011 – meaning it is feasible, though unlikely, they could reopen the door for him to represent Scotland.

The SRU have decided to bide their time and await full written judgement of the ruling before deciding how to proceed over Shingler, whose brother Aaron made his Wales debut at flanker against Scotland last month.

Responding to the IRB's announcement, the SRU issued a statement, which read: 'We remain fully supportive of Steven Shingler, a talented young rugby player who has expressed his sincere and earnest wish to represent Scotland.

'We await the full written decision of the IRB regulations committee and may comment further on receipt.'

Pain: Shingler had expressed a desire to play for Scotland, say the SRU

Pain: Shingler had expressed a desire to play for Scotland, say the SRU

Neither Wales nor France field an A team and the WRU challenged the SRU's initial assertion in January that Shingler was eligible for Scotland, citing IRB regulation eight on international eligibility.

The SRU responded, citing the complex cases of Matthew Jarvis and James Loxton, who played for Wales Under 20s in 2010, a year prior to Shingler, before switching allegiance to Ireland.

The cases of Jarvis and Loxton prompted the global review, which recommended playing for an Under 20 team should no longer commit that player to that nation.

The two issues are separate, yet interlinked. If the IRB council ratify the recommendations and due to the timing of the Shingler case, they may apply the new law to him specifically.

However, that appears unlikely as the IRB made specific reference to the review in announcing their decision over Shingler.

The ruling came as little surprise as an initial informal assessment by the IRB determined that the player appeared to be tied to Wales.

That prompted the SRU to formally request the IRB regulations committee review the case, with a three-man regulations committee panel chaired by Peter Boyle (Ireland) and also comprising Giancarlo Dondi (Italy) and Tim Gresson (New Zealand) hearing evidence from Shingler, his agent and the Scottish and Welsh Rugby Unions at a hearing in Dublin on February 27.

Up and coming: Shingler could one day become a Wales fly-half or centre

Up and coming: Shingler could one day become a Wales fly-half or centre

In announcing their verdict, a statement from the IRB read: 'The IRB regulations committee panel hearing the Steven Shingler eligibility case has determined that the player is tied to Wales in accordance with IRB regulation eight as it stands and therefore is ineligible to represent another Union.

'This decision is binding on the parties until it is endorsed or overturned by the IRB council.

'The panel noted that, in accordance with IRB regulation eight, playing in a designated capturing match (Wales Under 20s' match with France) was the key determining factor with regard to the player's eligibility.'

The panel acknowledged in their judgement the recommendation of the potential scrapping of the Under 20s as the next senior side, and that the timing could impact on Shingler's case.

The IRB statement added: 'The panel further recognised that the IRB council will have made its determination on the recommendations of both committees regarding the next senior national representative team review prior to its consideration of the regulations committee decision in the Shingler case.

'Council, in accordance with IRB regulation two, is able to endorse or overturn the decision of the regulations committee.

'It should also be noted that unless specifically stated by council, changes to laws and regulations do not have retrospective application.'

Lamont Peterson appeals Amir Khan rematch decision by WBA

Peterson appeals WBA rematch verdict as 'man in the hat' breaks silence on Khan

Lamont Peterson has lodged 'a comprehensive written appeal' against the WBA's decision to order a rematch against Amir Khan.

The governing body last week confirmed they wanted Peterson to defend their light-welterweight title against Khan after he defeated the Englishman in controversial circumstances in his native Washington on December 10.

But Peterson, who will keep the IBF title regardless after Khan withdrew his appeal to that governing body, is ready to fight that judgement.

Mystery: The IBF were going to look at the role played by Mustafa Ameen (left)

Mystery: The IBF were going to look at the role played by Mustafa Ameen (left)

A statement from Team Peterson said: 'Although rumours have surfaced that we are now in negotiations for a Peterson vs Kahn rematch in Washington DC, at this time there are no open negotiations for this bout.

'The Peterson team's focus is on the WBA's decision mandating an immediate rematch.

'A comprehensive written appeal has been submitted to the WBA and we are confident that the WBA will overturn its decision mandating an immediate rematch and recognise Lamont Peterson as the true and final WBA Jr(light) Welterweight World Champion.'

Earlier on Wednesday the infamous 'man in the hat' at the centre of Khan's controversial defeat to Peterson has claimed he was correcting errors on the scorecards.

Mustafa Ameen's unexplained involvement at ringside recently became the latest in a line of complaints from Englishman Khan following his split decision loss in Washington, which saw the local fighter snatch his WBA and IBF light-welterweight titles.

Ameen had been unidentified at first
before being named by promoter Richard Schaefer of Golden Boy. The IBF
admitted he was loosely affiliated to them but insisted was not carrying
out any official duties on fight night.

Blow: Amir Khan (left) was beaten by Lamont Peterson in Washington

Blow: Amir Khan (left) was beaten by Lamont Peterson in Washington

Yet Ameen – who denies any wrongdoing – has admitted he did get involved with WBA supervisor Michael Welsh.

'I noticed one error and a subsequent error. I assisted him in correcting it without touching anything,' he told BBC Sport.

'I happened to look down, I believe at the end of the third round, I looked down and I saw Mr Welsh's score.

'I saw, I believe, it could have been nine, nine and nine – which is 27 all day long. There was an error. It might have been 26 or 28 but he was off by a point or two.

'I happened to look down and I said “Michael, nine times three is 27”. He said “oh my God” and corrected himself.

'And he said “I'm not feeling well this evening, thank you very much”.'

Khan
insists he still wants a rematch with Peterson despite dramatically
withdrawing his appeal against his controversial defeat.

The
International Boxing Federation announced just hours before the hearing
was scheduled to start in Newark, New Jersey that Khan’s team had
changed their minds.

Golden Boy Promotions CEO Richard Schaefer later claimed that he felt Khan's side of the argument would not be heard.

Hitting back: Mustafa Ameen (left) claims he corrected scorecards

Hitting back: Mustafa Ameen (left) claims he corrected scorecards

'You have certain officials who were going to be there telling their side of the story, and you have others which were not going to be there, and I think that the bottom line is that that would result in a one-sided story, and I have shared my views on this particular subject with the IBF President Daryl Peoples a couple of weeks ago,' Schaefer told RingTV.

'I told him that if he was in fact going to have certain people there, and others not, then that does not sound to me as if there was a fully transparent meeting because only part of the story was going to to be told. So I to not see any reason to participate in such a process. That's basically what it is.

'It would have been a one-sided hearing where not all of the parties would have been there to tell the story. It would have been there to tell the story. It would have been a one-sided story. They were going to include only partial representation of the fight's officials at the proposed IBF hearing.

'So we feel that it makes no sense to
go forward, but to, instead, use the time and the energy to focus on
Amir's next fight. So we have decided to withdraw from the hearing and
to focus on Amir's next fight.'

A statement on Khan's official site said that his camp hoped a rematch could be agreed.

Change of heart: Khan had already arrived in New York for the hearing

Change of heart: Khan had already arrived in New York for the hearing

'Golden Boy Promotions and Team Khan are pleased to have been vindicated
by the World Boxing Association’s (WBA) recent decision to mandate an
immediate rematch and still hope that Mr. Peterson will honor earlier
statements in which he asserted that he would be happy to agree to a
rematch.

'In that vein, Golden Boy Promotions and Team Khan would agree
to a 50/50 split of worldwide revenues derived from a rematch (including
those derived from the United Kingdom) should Mr. Peterson agree to
participate and hope that this will be both financially and
professionally satisfying to Mr. Peterson and his team.'

So-called 'mystery man' Ameen was due to
speak at the hearing. However, arguably the most credible witness was
not due to be present in Newark, New Jersey, with the IBF confirming
that Welsh was not going to be there to explain what Ameen was doing or
saying, because he is a representative of another governing body and
therefore not answerable to them.

The IBF said the request was made by attorney Arnold Joseph on behalf of Golden Boy Promotions.

'For now, it's off, and they've withdrawn the appeal. We do not know if they will want to do it over again.

'As of now, basically, what it means is that what was going to take place tomorrow is done.'

Disbelief: Khan has not accepted his defeat in Washington lying down

Disbelief: Khan has not accepted his defeat in Washington lying down

When asked if Peterson will remain the IBF titleholder, the organisation said: 'Absolutely.'

In
losing to Peterson, Khan relinquished both his IBF and WBA belts, but
the WBA last week ordered a rematch to take place within 180 days after
Khan’s claims of wrongdoing at ringside in Washington on December 10.

Khan complained to both the WBA and
IBF after losing his light-welterweight titles to Peterson in the
American's native Washington on December 10.

He highlighted several grievances,
chiefly referee Joe Cooper's deduction of two points, the judges'
scoring of the bout and the unexplained presence of 'mystery man'
Mustafa Ameen at ringside.

Khan, along with father Shah and
business manager Asif Vali, flew from Britain to the United States ahead of the hearing in Newark, New Jersey.

Khan's team has demanded answers to a
number of questions – not least what role Ameen played when interacting
with ringside officials.

One possible explanation for the withdrawal of the appeal could be that Golden Boy and Peterson's team have come to an agreement over a rematch between themselves.

That, however, would not explain why Khan's team are remaining silent on the matter. Neither they nor Golden Boy Promotions were answering calls on Tuesday night.