No show for Sliema in Simon Agius case

Thursday, August 5, 2010, 17:19

by Sandro Micallef

The MFA’s players, coaches, players agents and member Clubs complaints Board has summoned Simon Agius on one part and Sliema Wanderers FC on the other, last Tuesday to commence the hearing of the request made by the player regarding payments he is due by the Club for the 2009/10 season.

Simon Agius

Simon Agius

Goalkeeper Agius has opted to write to this Board in the light of his suspension by the club following an alleged corruption case issue surrounding Sliema the day before of the UEFA Europa League decider clash against Qormi FC. On the eve of this important game the goalkeeper had left the Hotel in which the Sliema players were lodged after he had spoken at length with the club’s president and other officials in the evening. Eventually the player had also filed a judicial protest in court against the Club’s officials whilst the Club had suspended him for leaving the Hotel.

A punctual Simon Agius arrived to the MFA headquarters as requested only to find out that his former club’s officials did not turn up.

This website contacted a representative of the player and confirmed that Agius had been told by the members of the Board that Sliema officials did not turn up. After some minutes it was decided that the hearing would be postponed by two weeks.

When asked about the reason of this ‘‘no show” by Sliema officials Steve Abela President said: “We were not notified of this hearing and had we been aware we would have gone to the MFA offices as requested”. Abela added “we were told that a formal notification letter was sent but no one from our club received anything, usually we also receive all sort of communication via email from the MFA but this time it was not the case, anyhow it seems that the hearing is scheduled to take place in a couple of weeks’ time” the Sliema President concluded.

According to the MFA’s statute Rule number 64 sub article 3, the players, coaches, players agents and member Clubs complaints Board had the right to take a decision on the payment issue even though the Club’s representatives were not present. It is not known why the Chairman of this Board Vice President Carmelo Bartolo opted to re-schedule the hearing.





1 Comment

  1. Denis Brincat says:

    Obvious……Sliema have a vote and players do not!

    [Reply]

Leave a comment