Shennanigans - Tim howard
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:40 pm365
The Premier League will look into Tim Howard's absence from Everton's 4-2 loss to Manchester United on 28 April.
The goalkeeper moved to Goodison Park on a season-long loan last season but agreed a permanent move in February.
A Premier League spokesman told the News "As Howard's is a permanent transfer there is no reason why he could not have played.
"Had such a clause been included, we would not have allowed it - it would be a case of third party interference."
The 27-year-old American was not allowed to feature against United and was replaced by second-choice keeper Iain Turner who made a crucial error as the visitors overcame a two-goal deficit to win.
And the Premier League are reported to be set to investigate whether an agreement over Howard's availability existed between the teams.
Before the match Everton boss David Moyes appeared to suggest that there had been a verbal agreement between the clubs over Howard's omission.
Moyes said: "While Tim Howard was on loan he would not have been able to play against his parent club, United. But although we have now signed him ourselves, United wanted the loan clause to remain in operation.
"It was partly the reason we were able to tie up the deal for next season as early as we did, we have abided by their wishes."
And Everton spokesman Ian Ross said that as a condition of making the loan deal permanent in February, United had insisted Howard did not play in the game at Goodison Park.
Although Howard's move was completed outside the transfer window, loan deals can be made permanent at any time.
"We certainly have no record of an agreement between Everton and United that Howard could not play on April 28," the spokesman added.
"We will be contacting both clubs as a matter of urgency to find out what has gone on."
The Premier League will look into Tim Howard's absence from Everton's 4-2 loss to Manchester United on 28 April.
The goalkeeper moved to Goodison Park on a season-long loan last season but agreed a permanent move in February.
A Premier League spokesman told the News "As Howard's is a permanent transfer there is no reason why he could not have played.
"Had such a clause been included, we would not have allowed it - it would be a case of third party interference."
The 27-year-old American was not allowed to feature against United and was replaced by second-choice keeper Iain Turner who made a crucial error as the visitors overcame a two-goal deficit to win.
And the Premier League are reported to be set to investigate whether an agreement over Howard's availability existed between the teams.
Before the match Everton boss David Moyes appeared to suggest that there had been a verbal agreement between the clubs over Howard's omission.
Moyes said: "While Tim Howard was on loan he would not have been able to play against his parent club, United. But although we have now signed him ourselves, United wanted the loan clause to remain in operation.
"It was partly the reason we were able to tie up the deal for next season as early as we did, we have abided by their wishes."
And Everton spokesman Ian Ross said that as a condition of making the loan deal permanent in February, United had insisted Howard did not play in the game at Goodison Park.
Although Howard's move was completed outside the transfer window, loan deals can be made permanent at any time.
"We certainly have no record of an agreement between Everton and United that Howard could not play on April 28," the spokesman added.
"We will be contacting both clubs as a matter of urgency to find out what has gone on."
