Daniel Taylor has a fair point imo about being careful to complain about something that you've been found to do yourself. I'd personally prefer to keep it all behind closed do
But surely rather than Lascelles case (which happened long before Martinez joined) the more relevant case to quote was when Martinez was accused by Palace of being overly chatty in the media as that is the comparable situation. And if you are going to mention the Lascelles case as one of the few examples of a club being found guilty of illegal appraoch it seems slightly strange to overlook when Mourinho and Chelsea were penalised to the tune of 300k/200k respectively.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/aug/08/liverpool-bill-shankly-glory-years#comments
Those in glasshouses shouldn’t complain about Stones
If Everton are correct in their suspicion that there is a deliberate campaign going on at Chelsea to unsettle John Stones then Roberto Martínez and everyone else at Goodison Park is entitled to be aggrieved by the drip-drip tactics by Stamford Bridge. It isn’t widely known, for example, that the Premier League’s rules forbid anyone from one club – no matter if it is the manager, the kitman or whoever runs the souvenir shop — talking up the possibility of buying a player who is registered somewhere else. The players may not have memorised Rule T.8 in the list of regulations marked Public Statements, but Martínez was right when he complained that John Terry should not, in theory, be discussing the prospect of Stones joining Chelsea.
At the same time, Everton are conveniently forgetting their own tactics, and this is a much less publicised story, when they were trying to sign another young English centre-half, Jamaal Lascelles, then at Nottingham Forest and now of Newcastle United. On that occasion, Lascelles and his agent were invited to Goodison, given a guided tour of the club’s training ground and, naturally, the promise of a hefty pay rise. Yes, two wrongs don’t make a right, but it was one of the few cases when a club has been found guilty of making an illegal approach. It resulted in a £45,000 fine and, as tapping-up goes, it was of a very different nature to a couple of strategically placed sentences in the newspapers.
But surely rather than Lascelles case (which happened long before Martinez joined) the more relevant case to quote was when Martinez was accused by Palace of being overly chatty in the media as that is the comparable situation. And if you are going to mention the Lascelles case as one of the few examples of a club being found guilty of illegal appraoch it seems slightly strange to overlook when Mourinho and Chelsea were penalised to the tune of 300k/200k respectively.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/aug/08/liverpool-bill-shankly-glory-years#comments
Those in glasshouses shouldn’t complain about Stones
If Everton are correct in their suspicion that there is a deliberate campaign going on at Chelsea to unsettle John Stones then Roberto Martínez and everyone else at Goodison Park is entitled to be aggrieved by the drip-drip tactics by Stamford Bridge. It isn’t widely known, for example, that the Premier League’s rules forbid anyone from one club – no matter if it is the manager, the kitman or whoever runs the souvenir shop — talking up the possibility of buying a player who is registered somewhere else. The players may not have memorised Rule T.8 in the list of regulations marked Public Statements, but Martínez was right when he complained that John Terry should not, in theory, be discussing the prospect of Stones joining Chelsea.
At the same time, Everton are conveniently forgetting their own tactics, and this is a much less publicised story, when they were trying to sign another young English centre-half, Jamaal Lascelles, then at Nottingham Forest and now of Newcastle United. On that occasion, Lascelles and his agent were invited to Goodison, given a guided tour of the club’s training ground and, naturally, the promise of a hefty pay rise. Yes, two wrongs don’t make a right, but it was one of the few cases when a club has been found guilty of making an illegal approach. It resulted in a £45,000 fine and, as tapping-up goes, it was of a very different nature to a couple of strategically placed sentences in the newspapers.
