The philosophical argument of the Tevez saga
The West Ham-Sheffield United battle is now becoming football's equivalent of The Mousetrap.
It could well run into the 2009-2010 season before we know if West Ham will have to pay any of the £30m compensation Sheffield United are demanding for having suffered relegation in the 2007 season.
West Ham's lawyers led by the redoubtable Maurice Watkins, Manchester United director who has been a pioneer in sports law, have succeeded in postponing the direction hearing due on Thursday. Their successful argument was that Watkins's firm had been appointed only a week ago and needed time to study the massive set of papers.
Thursday's hearing would not have ended this long, complicated saga but would have started the process of calculating how much West Ham should pay.
That hearing may now not take place for many weeks.
Long before that, in the next day or so, West Ham will go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and even if Cas do not hear them West Ham remain confident they can overturn this decision.
One of the West Ham arguments is that any compensation violates natural justice, in particular the idea of no double jeopardy. Having paid £5.5m back in 2007 they should not now, nearly two years later, be asked for six times as much for the same alleged crime.
But they also have a more central, call it philosophical, argument: They need to win for the sake of sport.
Otherwise, the argument runs, this will be an invitation for lawyers across the land; chaos will reign and there will be no such thing as decisions arrived at on the field of play, instead sporting matters will be decided by complex legal arguments in musty court rooms and dingy judges' chambers.
While there is a certain amount of special pleading by West Ham here the whole case does raise enormous questions about sports and law. Namely, how far can lawyers decide sporting issues? Sport has always seen itself as something very special.
Sport likes to talk about its laws, the laws of football, the laws of cricket. And if you break them there is much talk of illegality but these are rules of a particular trade association, not the laws of the land.
Football may make the poaching of players a high crime but in ordinary life such poaching goes on all the time and is certainly not illegal.
Sport likes to keep law at bay and sporting organisations such as Fifa and Uefa make it clear their member associations must not go to the law but must settle all matters within the football family.
All this indicates that there is a delicate balance between sport and law. You can have lawyers operating in sports but they must not derail sport in the process. West Ham will argue that this is just what the Sheffield United judgment has done.
However, even if we concede that it is impossible to say Tevez on his own kept West Ham up, the fact remains that sporting laws work curiously.
Take the case of Antonio Pettigrew the American 400m runner, who was part of the relay team that won gold in Sydney in 2000. Many years later he was found to have taken drugs.
Now it is impossible to prove that he and the rest of his team won just because he took drugs but since this is an enormous sporting crime he is rightly punished and his medal taken away. But he is not the only one punished. His fellow American medal winners have also had their medals taken away, eight years after winning them.
And if it is impossible to say Tevez kept West Ham up, then how can you say that the US relay team, which included Michael Johnson, only won because they included Pettigrew?
It is a question to which I must confess I do not know the answer.
I would like to think the annual meeting of the British Association for Sport and Law, which meets at the Emirates Stadium on Thursday, will consider this question. But I somehow doubt it.
We must resign ourselves to the reality that the influence of lawyers in sport, in all its maddening complexities, will grow and the Sheffield Untied case is not the end but the start of something rather new and very uncharted.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~29~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
If the PL made the right decision and deducted points off west ham instead of a fine, we wouldn't be talking about this.
think it was a case of a London club being favoured over an unfashionable club in sheff united.
Complain about this comment
It's a by-product of the increased commercialism and corporate side of sport. When large sums of money, PLC's, share issues, insurance issues etc etc etc are involved, then it makes sense that the legal world will have to be involved to a greater level. If a sports club operates as a company then it should expect the lawyers to be right in there.
The example with Pettigrew is a little different. Pettigrew cheated himself and cheated his peers. The threat of being ostracised and reviled by peers and athletics fans alike if you are found to be using banned substances with clear intent to improve performance should be enough to persuade many to stop but it isn't.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Plexico, if Sheffield Utd had stayed up and not been relegated we wouldn't be hearing about this. Funny how they only complained once Wigan had relegated them and they realised they might have some sort of case and/or excuse. They never mentioned anything atall of the affair before it had effected them.
West Ham were fined- they were punished- end of. Think it's a case of sour grapes and bitterness tbh. Tevez doesn't even play for them anymore it's been that long!! And would Sheffield Utd be still going on about it if they had been promoted last season? Probably not.
They're a poor team anyway, West Ham at least bring some sort of class to the EPL.
Complain about this comment
What I cannot understand is that Tevez is still third party owned and playing in the premiership! How does this work other than the fact he is now playing for one of the big four, and they are not party to the rules everyone else is.
Complain about this comment
In short, Sheffield UTD are pathetic.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If Sheffield hadn't gone down and it was Wigan or Fulham they would have still sued the Hammers.West Ham played outside of the rules the other teams did no wrong.
The hammers are now saying Tevez made no difference in their bid to stay up.
It's like having a bike race everything is going nicely when suddenly someone enters the race riding a motorcycle.
Whether he was a good player or not the point is the hammers deceived the PL not just once but the new evidence has shown again after they were warned by the PL not to.Tevez was so vital to them they risked a deception and more punishment to get him in the side for the last few games.Time for the PL to act and the hammers to pay up and quit moaning!
Complain about this comment
"Funny how they only complained once Wigan had relegated them and they realised they might have some sort of case and/or excuse. They never mentioned anything atall of the affair before it had effected them."
#4 - If you cast your mind back I think you'll remember that all the teams around them in the league were contemplating legal action whilst the season was still progressing. But after the season on Sheffield United felt they had lost out in the deceipt by West Ham - if they had stayed up then there wouldn't have been a financial loss as the deceipt would not have resulted in them being relegated!
"What I cannot understand is that Tevez is still third party owned and playing in the premiership!"
#5 - haven't Man Utd just paid out over 30million pounds for Tevez?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Fair enough Kasbah, I remember other teams backing Sheffield UTD and speaking out at the affair, but where do you draw the line? Why do one team think they have the right over everybody else to claim £30 million? Surely other teams could have a case too, what is stopping certain teams claiming West Ham cost them a Uefa cup spot or even Champions League sopt for example.
Maybe they should be punished further through a hefty fine, but I don't think the Blades should see a penny.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So will clubs taking the refs to court for bad decisions, West Ham habve been punished, it's for the ruling body to rule. Sheffied United should take the FA/PL to court if they are unhappy.
Seems to be an absence of control and management if clubs start to try to fight each other.......
Complain about this comment
Tevez is still owned by a by a third party he is still on loan at Man U.
They own his registration but if they do not pay the tranfer fee by the end of the season he will become available to the highest bidder.
Complain about this comment
Sheffield united cheated by playing a weakened team against Man united earlier,teams have been punished for this in the past. Nobody complained about Tevez when he played against sheffield united and west ham lost with a few games to go.West Ham escaped relegation on the field of play,Sheffield United are trying to explain the failure of their players throughout the season on a technicality. It has to be said Sheffied United's display on the last day of the season was a disgrace when all they needed was a draw to stay up,they assumed West Ham would lose at Old Trafford. An unbelievable display of amateurism by a club who claim to be concerned by the financial effects of relegation-I have yet to meet anyone who has any sympathy for them.
Complain about this comment
Sheff utd clutching at straws is what this looks like to me.The punishment has been given.A lot of you fail to mention that over 38 games West Ham gained more points than Sheff utd.And to argue that ALL of this was down to one player is ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mihir raises some very intersting points:
If a club admits it lied to the FAPL to gain an unfair advantage, should everyone simply move on even if a club wo do not cheat are relegated as a result?
When should convenience overcome principle - if a club is wronged, should it just accept the deceipt and move on?
If a club approaches the FA to ask if it is OK to sign a player, is it OK to conceal the contract terms if you don't like the response?
Are some issues too complicated to comprehend for journalists and fans?
Complain about this comment
Your comparison of Pettigrew to Tevez is extremely poor, in the case of Pettigrew it case easily measured what his contribution was by his split time, apart from the handing over of the baton each individuals contribution in the race can be easily measured, I would like to see someone measure Tevez’s contribution over the WHOLE season. The punishment the authorities gave the USA team was to take their gold medal away; the punishment the authorities gave West Ham was a huge fine.
The only thing you can compare Sheffield united actions to, would be if the silver medalist were suing the USA team for loss of earnings, sponsorships and endorsements as they were not regarded as Gold medalist at the time.
Complain about this comment
Posts 1 and 23 nail it on the head. The FA made a disgraceful decision in not deducting West Ham points.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mr Bose, you've missed one vital point, in sport we expect our teams to show 'fair play'!
Did West Ham show fair play in hiding the murky dealings of the Tevez deal or, in fact did they show fair play in doing this deal in the first place?
Did the FA show fair play to Sheffield United, who had played by the rules by only giving the hammers a fine when a points deduction was obviously called for?
Something for you to think about.
Complain about this comment
money money money money money money money money money
Complain about this comment
I think when a club is relegated it can be very painful and fans of that club look for someone to blame.
In West Ham and Tevez they had a ready made scapegoat.
In means there manager, players and chairmans performance are not analysed over that season and the blame is put somewhere else.
Listening to many Sheff Utd supporters they wish that this had been dropped a long time ago and the club had concentrated on promotion last season.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It may be hard to measure Tevez's contribution but it cannot be denied that WHU expected his contribution to be better than the player or players he replaced otherwise they would not have played him.
Those who take drugs are taking a calculated risk that their performance will be improved and they will not be found out.
WHU took a risk, and so far it seems to have paid off, that by playing Tevez, against the rules, the advantage they gained would be greater than any loss they might suffer.
Only time will tell if they will lose more than they gained.
It is the same with all those clubs that go into administration. Wipe out your debts and only lose 10 points!
The whole of sport suffers when the rules are broken. The punishments against those who do so should always be severe enough to convince others who might try it that it is not worth the risk.
Complain about this comment
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't SU's case about compensation - not punishment. And if it is compensation then there is a precedent. Ashton (arguably the Hammers most influential player at the time) went missing for an entire season after breaking a leg with the England team. It might even be the case that his present injury flows from that as well. The FA have a level of compensation in such cases. I don't know what West Ham received, but I don't think there'd be much objection to handing over a similar sum to SU. I can't believe it was 30 million!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mr Bose
As a neutral in all this I must say I agree with Sheffield United on this. I find the analogy with Pettigrew unconvincing and don't see that double jeopardy applies to these circumstances. It's not just the same crime, additional breaches of the rules and clear evidence of a conspiracy to mislead not known at the time have emerged - the scale of the deception is significantly greater than was known when WHU were find a paltry amount in relation to the offence and the commercial implications of staying up.
Leeds United were docked 15 points!!!
West Ham must have known that there was the strong likelihood that Sheffield United would not let this rest, and their air of injured innocence doesn't wash.
Same applies to their argument that it's unfair to pursue them after the passing of time. A burglar can't get away with arguing "aw, guv, it was two years ago that I robbed your house, I've spent all the money and moved on".
Dont forget also that WHU signed up to a clause in the arbitration waiving any right of appeal.
Sport is NOT above the law as has been demonstrated from time to time with (for example) footballers charged with assault for thuggery on the pitch.
Professional sport is still getting away with a huge raft of practices in relation to disciplinary procedures, contracts, restraint of trade and other areas whaich are highly dubious legally and morally. Some of these may be in the public interest, others are clearly not.
Amateur sport had some justification for asking the law to "but out". Professional sport is a billion dollar business, and must abide by the law, same as everyone else.
Complain about this comment
When will Mr Bose finally grasp the public role of an editor?
He provides perfectly erudite descriptions of topical situations, but many of us can do that, including I imagine, all of his own journalists.
If he wishes to have an editor's blog, he should at least give us an opinion on the great issues of the day. But Mr Bose obviously loves the fence he is sitting on and will stay there until someone finally pushes him off.
I wonder if he actually has an opinion on anything and, if he does, would like to share it with the people who pay his salary?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mihir, this whole saga should be blamed on the EPL. If they had the guts and immediately deducted the necessary points from Westham none of this would have happened. Middlesborough was deducted points when they could not field a team due. Instead of giving the three points to Blackburn, the PL controversially deducted 3 points from Boro. This shows that PL is run by a bunch of nincompoops.
Mihir, you wanted sports to be kept outside the laws just the same as FIFA and UEFA wants. Do you know that the main reason is corruption. In this way, they can make all the money they want at everyones expense.
No one should be above the law, especially people like Sepp Bladder. Now they have suspended Poland because a Polish independent inquiry has found out there is enormous corruption in the Polish FA, and the only way to get rid of corruption is to suspend the FA.
What does FIFA do? The suspend Poland.
By doing this FIFA is saying to everyone, go ahead with whatever you want to do, including corruption.
It is time that the European Court of Human Rights look into FIFA ancd kick them into touch unless they agree to abide by laws of the land.
Complain about this comment
This article misses out three of the most important points of this saga - crucial matters if one is to get any understanding of the legal process.
1. The law always distinguishes between punishment (eg a fine) and compensation awarded to the victim of the wrongdoing. The two are entirely different. The punishment of West Ham was a £5.5m fine. This money did not go to Sheffield United. No appeal was allowed but it was challenged merely on a technical point of law but the challenge failed and the punishment upheld. This is standard legal practice and the case has not been re-opened.
2. The claim by Sheffield United was for compensation arising out of the proven wrongdoing of West Ham. This was the only full hearing of their claim against West Ham. Imagine you are attacked in the street and injured. The police prosecute your attacker and he is fined £500 with community service ie. his punishment. He complies with both However, he ruined your clothes and you lost a months work through injuries sustained from him. You also had pain and trauma. You sue him for compensation for these - quite rightly - and win. This is NOT double jeopardy; it is standard legal practice. This is the position of West Ham and Sheffield United.
3. It should not be forgotten that West Ham continued to play Tevez on the basis of a sham unilateral termination of their MSI contract. This was arguably a further and much more serious offence than that which lead to the first hearing. It remains to be seen whether the PL will charge West Ham over this.
Complain about this comment
still a football, not a sports blog!
there can be huge comparisons maded with rugby league, which has a salary cap, and a cap which has been breached by clubs who have stayed up - including the mighty wigan!!!
but then again, the BBCs 'sports blog' isn't about sports in the plural at all...
Complain about this comment
To say SU are entirely blameless is a sham the name of Kabba springs to mind where the player was under third party owner ship,It turns out it was Steve Kabba's move to Watford the season that Sheffield quite rightly got themselves relegated. He had played in the 14 games running up to the Watford v Sheffield game and then surprisingly was left out.
Complain about this comment
Where will this ruling take us? If Bolton Wanderers are relegated on goal difference at the end of this season, will they be able to make a similar claim on Rob Styles over the penalty he gave Man Utd on Saturday and subsequently apologised for giving. That decision could have cost Bolton a point and two goals against, as they may have gone on to record a 0-0 draw at Old Trafford.
I think we are on very dangerous ground; the game is played by humans and officiated by humans who will all make mistakes from time to time. We have to believe that over a season of 38 games, these will generally even themselves out.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Funny. For most of the season I seem to remember people blamed the arrival of Tevez and Mascherano for West Ham being in relegation trouble. So is Tevez responsible for them staying up, or to blame for them being there in the first place? You can't have it both ways. Which makes the ruling in favour of Sheff Utd ludicrous.
Complain about this comment
I think the FA has made a mistake in letting this go on so far - the should have threatened Sheff Utd with ejection from the football league if they pursued it, because if this case sets a precedent football is going to quickly devolve into a game played by lawyers.
Complain about this comment
My arguement on this saga is very simple.
If the FA made the wrong decision in the amount of penalty due to West Ham at the time of the last ruling, then surely they should be responsible in any financial consequences that other bodies feel is due to Sheffield United (and not West Ham open to a free for all claim from Sheffield Utd club and players).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It seems wrong that this whole issue has gone on so long. Surely the reason Sheff UTD was relegated was due to their form over a season and not on the last day. If this is the case then Man UTD could sue Chelsea if they were to lose to them on the last day of the season and Chelsea became Champions, because by doing so they cost Man UTD millons. Get the point!
Complain about this comment
Mihir,
I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you only write this in order to say something provocative.
Football clubs and associations were given plenty of notice by the Bosman ruling in 1995 that the law was "on their case."
It's now 2008, the sums of money involved are much greater. the fans and (some of) the players know that they are not above the law.
So why do some clubs still think they are?
Maybe it's because some of the administrators think they can still make and break rules and generally run the business as if it was 1908.
I can only see recourse to law increasing.
Eventually, I'm sure that even FIFA and UEFA will see the writing on the wall.
But I'm not so sure about Sepp Blatter.
Complain about this comment
When the lawyers get involved they should be aware that in the courts of this country, if someone is found guilty of a crime and are fined, they can also be made to pay compensation to the people who have suffered a financial loss as a result of their crime.
If Tevez doesn't make a substantial contribution towards any points that are gained by the teams he plays for, then why is he worth £30m and would Fergie swap him for Daniel Cousin of Hull City who scored the winner against Arsenal at the Emirates Stadium?
Of course he wouldn't swap him, because Tevez makes a bigger inpact for Man Utd over the season than Daniel Cousin would if they swapped.
He also made a significant difference for West Ham (against the rules) and caused Sheffield Utd severe financial hardship as a result.
Loads of teams were looking to prise Tevez away from West Ham, because they believed that he would make a significant (£30m) difference to their results.
Complain about this comment
We re-signed Tevez in January or does evryone forget this. When Tevez was an 'illegal player' he didnt even score and we did appalingly. we won only 3 games in 23 whilst he and mascherano were 'illegally at the club' picking up just 16 points. If tevez was truely amazing surely our point point ratio would be better than 2 points every 3 games. Its all a case of sour grapes, does the name Kabba not mean anything to these hypocritical fans. Sheffield united are pathetic they bottled it and look where are they and that moaning git Warnock are now! Both languishing in the lower part of the championship, ok united are now 6th but only 3 points sperates them from 16th placed Southampton. Ok there were discrepencies in Tevez's contract but ultimately he wanted to play for us, he was properly registered with us bar the 3rd party ruling, the F.A processed the paper work end of. We re signed him legally and then he came good. The case that he single handedly kept us up, which is franky rediculous; the efforts of Green and Zamora to name but a few stand alongside Tevez, can only be judged in the period of his first contract in which we and he performed awfully. Sheffield United have lost many a case over the 'Tevez saga' and now they need to drop it Tottenham escaped a fine when Sir Alan Sugar took over as the wrong doings were committed by a previous board. Surely West Ham can play the same card. My advice to United fans is Stop crying! Drink some coke and enjoy it cos you will be sipping for a loooooong time
Complain about this comment
Overall I have difficulty with the concept that a party is punished (within the terms of the rules), the punishment accepted and then, some time later, is handed a further punishment. Surely there are elements of double jeopardy here?
It should be remembered that there was an option of deducting points. Not done. Why? West Ham were so obviously going to be relegated that a points deduction would have been totally meaningless. Had that penalty been handed out and relegation duly followed (no 'spirit' to chase the points actually gained), there would have been howls of complaint that West Ham got off so lightly.
The tribunal got its calculations wrong but SORRY, West Ham should not suffer FOR THE TRIBUNAL'S ERROR. That, in golfing terms, is the rub of the green.
Now, the more sinister aspect is the potential for imposing a compensation requirement for what is said to be a breach of (West Ham's) duty to Sheffield United. Was it not in the same season that Liverpool picked a weakened team against Fulham? Did Liverpool not have a "duty to Sheffield United"?
If any club fails to pick its strongest team against a relegation threatened side and that side wins and avoids relegation, will we have relegated clubs queueing up with their hands out?
If a relegation threatened team commits a penalty area foul, is not picked up and gets a vital point to avoid relegation, will we have relegated clubs rushing off to court?
If this is not squashed and squashed fast, we're on the fast road to anarchy. The legal profession will be even further on the pigs back and who will suffer? The poor old fans.
If anyone in authority out there is reading this, MAKE SURE THIS RIDICULOUS PLEA FOR COMPENSATION IS THROWN OUT.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Did Carlos Tevez have an impact in us staying up? Definitely so, but then so did the rest of the team. Without a doubt, Tevez stood out but the decision by the Court of Arbitration to compensate SUFC is ridiculous.
Im sure having made this decision, they will now start to realise their stupidity and the repercussion that will follow. Say that SUFC get their compensation. Their case being that Tevez contributed to their downfall. Now their players (very selfishly should I say) want compensation for their own downfall.
What’s now to stop Charlton and Watford also then claiming compensation as they too went down that year? And then their players doing the same? Then lets take this a bit further and say whats to stop Everton then claiming that with Tevez playing, it prevented them from getting a Champions League spot and losing out on a £20m windfall. And their players also then doing the same? Chelsea claiming they lost out on the title and so on. And then let’s say that all the clubs then attempt to claim compensation, because their final league position would have been higher and lost out on that income.
Lets face it, the Premier League is a 38 game season and SUFC did not earn enough points to stay in. I cannot accept that one player's contribution can be placed over that of the team as a whole, never has been and never will be. That’s why its called a team sport. This outcome has the potential to bankrupt WHU and what future precedents will this hold?
When the initial outcome of the Tevez enquiry had come out and WHU looked dead and buried, they didn’t make so much of a fuss then. When SUFC beat us near the end of the season and they looked safe, were they crying out for us to be docked points then. The decision was made and WHU accepted the decision paid the £5.5m penalty and that was it. This is just going too far. I hope the Court of Arbitration realise what they have done and award SUFC very minimal compensation to prevent future disputes being dealt with by legal courts rather than the very clever blokes at FA Headquarters!! Soon we’ll have SUFC fans claiming compensation because they bet a fiver that their Championship team would stay in the EPL but didn’t because of Tevez!!!
What I want to know is what the rest of the countrys’ supporters think about this as us hammer will obviously be biased towards us and the greedy Sheffield boys just want money. Let us know (By the way, when Tevez played against the relegated teams we lost them all, and quite miserably too).
Complain about this comment
Well Said OtaKinz, funny how more or less all the real football just want SUFC to shut up and play football
Complain about this comment
West Ham knowingly broke the rules and admitted guilt, for Mr. Bose to say that it is a case of small print law is misleading.
If West Ham really did own Tevez, how come he has not been sold to Man U instead of a two year loan.
Sounds like West Ham are afraid to do so because he was and still is, owned by a third party.
West Ham escaped relegation mainly due to Tevez, who was signed against the laws West Ham like all other EPL teams are signitaries too.
Only a weak and establishment biased EPL could find West Ham guilty and give them what is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
True justice would have found West Ham guilty and deducted points as they probably would, if little Bolton, Hull City, or for that matter Sheffield United were found guilty.
Complain about this comment
Lots of comments on here are comparing Athletics and Football.
What is the prize that Athletes are chasing? It's a medal!
What is the prize that football teams are chasing? It's points!
An athlete found to be cheating has the medal taken from them. A football team found to be cheating 'should' have points taken from them. However, it seems that the premier league is blinded by financial greed.
West Ham fans will argue that If Sheffield had won their last game they would've stayed up, and none of this would be happening....That's wrong!! If Wigan had been relegated instead of Sheffield, then WHU would now be facing a compensation claim from Dave Whelan (Wigan Chairman).
Instead of fans pointing the finger at each other, we should be asking serious questions of the FA/PL, who got the original punishment of WHU completely wrong.
At all levels, Football is played to gain points. If a team breaks rules to gain those points, then the punishment should be a points deduction.
We now await the PL response to the new evidence of further deceit by WHU in this case.
Complain about this comment
The West Ham supporters who draw comparisons with Man Utd suing Chelsea if they beat them to the title make me laugh and cry at the same time.
In your hypothetical little world, are Chelsea fielding a world class player on an illegal contract, which they promised to destroy but then carried on honouring anyway?
If so, then yes, if the Premier League had failed to impose a sufficient punishment, then Man Utd would have every right to sue.
It’s time to take off the claret and blue glasses folks, stand up and admit that the conduct of West Ham has been nothing short of appalling in this whole matter.
It’s also time for the Premier League to grow a spine, open a new enquiry based on the 2nd breach of the rules uncovered by the recent tribunal, and impose an appropriate penalty.
Complain about this comment
FAO Oatakinz, what is your view on the 2nd breach of the rules uncovered by the tribunal (deception over the destrucion of the offending contract and lies to that effect to the Premier League), which has thus far gone unpunished?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm pretty sure at the time that the fine was given there was an argument about why points weren't docked. Correct me if i'm wrong but was there not even a football focus segment asking if people thought it was the right punishment?
Although I can see the argument about tevez not keeping west ham up by himself (in fact I think Rob Green had more of an impact) I don't think that has much to do with the real issue, that the punishment given to West Ham originally was not correct. In most football fans eyes around the country it was agreed that the penalty should be 3 points deduction. It's my opinion that if the majority of the country agree on something surely the Premier League should consider their voice?
The main thing that annoys me about this is that the Premier League have never admitted that the original penalty was wrong. There would not be all this uproar from SUFC had they just given the punishment out then, the only reason why I think they didn't is because West Ham looked relegated at the time, I don't think that was the right decision to make unless they were mathematically relegated.
The question now is should the original penalty be reversed and changed? I think that although SUFC were unjustly treated originally, and maybe they should be awarded more, in reality the case will never grant them £30 million from West Ham. Maybe the Premier League should cough up for their misjudgement?
Complain about this comment
As a Manchester United fan, I'm ashamed club director Maurice Watkins is representing West Ham. Most United supporters hate West Ham, for obvious reasons. I really like Sheffield Utd anyway, I hope they win the case.
You fill up my senses, like a gallon of Magnet...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think this sage has dragged on for too long. Sheffield United are just appearing to the footballing world as total whingers. Let's face it, if they falter at one arbitration panel/resolution/whatever, they just go to the next one. Let's face it, they will never be happy and keep going, but I think it's safe to say we'd all just like them to give up the ghost. All of us but SU fans that is....
I think the last paragraph of post 48 sums all this up beautifully
Complain about this comment
#12 haven't Man Utd just paid out over 30million pounds for Tevez
But how much has west ham recieved of this. A couple of million ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/6935741.stm
its strange now nothing gets done when the big four are involved
Complain about this comment
Those of you referring to the "second breach of rules" need to understand something:
The PL has NEVER charged ANYONE on the basis of verbal agreements (on which this ruling has based its' conclusion).
If further charges are brought against WHU based on these findings, the PL will also have to charge Sheff Utd/Watford (Kabba), Man Utd/Everton (Howard), Tottenham/Portsmouth (Defoe) and everyone else who has come to a "Gentlemen's agreement" following a transfer.
This is a huge can of worms. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blinkered in the extreme...
Complain about this comment
TBH I feel this is far more complicated than anyone outside the legal profession can get their head round. Look:
1) If as a Football club signed up as a member of a Football Association you are agreeing to abide not only by their rules and regulations but by their decisions. Why are Sheff Utd allowed to take this to court?
2) I don't know the full ins an outs of this but after the fine by the FA. Tevez was passed to play by the FA. I assume this meant they were happy with his ownership by then and so any appearance he made after that date was within the rules. This would cover the oft stated goals which 'Saved' West Ham from relegation.
3) Interestingly the decision of the FA not to dock points was an equal if not overridding factor in West Hams escape from relegation. Why is Sheff Utd not sueing the FA?
4) What is the FA rule on 3rd party ownership. Loan deals would constitute 3rd party ownership would they not?. If this is against FA rules and the Maschereno/Tevez deal was widely reported as such in the press at the time why didn't the FA query it then. TBH suspect there is no such rule as WHU were not charged with that they were charged with not advising the FA of the ownership issues.
There is something very odd about this whole deal I do not believe the FA are protecting a London club but I suspect the FA may have dropped the ball here and are protecting themselves. Ponchus Pilot would have been proud of such a manouvre.
Complain about this comment
What I find most fustrating about this is that people comment on this case and the facts just go out of the window.
Tevez is still owned by a 3rd party and is on loan at Man U they have not bought him.
Third party ownership is not against Premier League rules.
There has been no second breach of the rules but people with a vested interest keeping saying there was.
As for people raising the issues of morals and fairness etc, etc.
What about Kabba not playing against Sheff Utd, was that fair to the other teams fighting relegation?
What about Sheff Utd playing a weakened team at Old Trafford, was that fair to the title race and Chelsea?
Complain about this comment
Sheffield United are asking for full compensation for being relegated, this means that they see the SOLE reason they were relegated down to West Ham.
They take NO responsibility for their own actions, was it West Hams fault that they only got 38 points, NO it was their own inability and you could say recklessness in not fielding full sides for EVERY game, but they seem to want to ignore this and place ALL the blame for their poor performance at the feet of West Ham.
I say fine give them compensation but, not £30m as in all compensation cases the claimants role has much to do with the amount of compensation awarded. If the claimant has contributed to their own injury by not taking proper precautions the resulting payments are often drastically reduced and in this case Sheffield United OWN actions on the field were a MAJOR contribution to there downfall.
Complain about this comment
Can someone please tell me why it is that only Sheffield Utd are pursuing this and not Watford or Charlton who also were relegated that season?
Complain about this comment
Season 2005/2006 - West ham finish in the top half of the table and lose on penalties in the FA Cup final to Liverpool.
31st August 2006 - To much fanfare, west ham announce the arrval of Tevez and Mascherano.
Sept - Oct 06 - West ham go 8 matches without scroing a single goal (with T + M in the side)
January 1st 2007 - Lost 6-0 away at Reading and in Feb, lose 4-0 away at Charlton. (With Tevez in the side)
March onwards - You know the rest.
My point is that for 7 months of the season we played terribly (with Tevez playing for a very large chunk of it) Who is to say if we didnt have him, we wouldn't have been higher up the league. A lot of disharmony in the squad was created when they joined, a squad that had done very well the previous season.
The reason for the compensation that may be imposed seems to be the impact on the results that Tevez seemed to have (or didnt have for the first 3/4 of the season....
If west ham are to be sued for Tevez scoring the winner against man Utd, then I want the points back that Sheff Utd earned when they beat us 3-0 at bramall Lane in April. Tevez played that day and was awful.
I dont remember you complaining about Tevez that day, I do remember a lot of "Going down Going down" sung by the sheff utd fans tho.......
Complain about this comment
Re comment 77 - The FAPL investigated this purely on the basis of unsubstantiated rumours from a particular (Wet Sham-supporting) journalist and concluded there was NO CASE TO ANSWER.
The facts are:
Kabba was signed by Watford as backup for Marlon King, who was Injured.
When Marlon King was available, he went into the starting lineup instead of Kabba - that game happened to be against SUFC.
Kabba didn't play for Watford again that season.
Kabba now plays for Blackpool, as he couldn't hold down a place in the Watford team and isn't exactly pulling up trees.
Hardly a player that has a significant effect on a games outcome. Unlike one valued at 30million+, who clearly doesn have a significant impact, otherwise he wouldn't be worth that amount!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I find some of these comments from Blades fans absolutely rediculous.
Tevez played from the start of the season and in most of the matches that saw West Ham lose, he didn't just show up halfway through the season and West Ham suddenly became good enough to stay up.
Yet according to Blades fans apparently only the matches West Ham won support the claim that he was worth 3 points. If anything, he and Mascherano unsettled the team so much that it saw West Ham rooted to the bottom of the league. He wasn't worth 3 points then was he?
Tevez played because the Premier League said he could and they also decided West Ham wouldn't be deducted points. If Sheffield United want to sue anyone then it should be the Premier League not West Ham.
If they seriously think that West Ham are favoured by the Premier League then how is it suddenly perfectly acceptable Tevez is still owned by a third party but can play for that more famous northern club Manchester United?
Sheffield United, their fans and their whingeing former manager Neil Warnock should just accept the fact that they weren't good enough, but no, they always blame someone else for their shortcomings. What next, if they only get £5mil compensation then they sue Wigan players for being too good in sending them down?
The only justice in all of this was Neil Warnock rightly losing his job for being a rubbish manager who couldn't motivate the poor team that he had constructed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just as an aside to my comment at 84 re comment 81, it is immaterial how much a player is worth.
Complain about this comment
"Ex-Sheffield United striker Steve Kabba is ruled out of the game - it was a feature of the contract when he signed for the 'Orns in the January transfer window"
http://www.watfordfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10400~1017098,00.html
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So, it's been agreed that West Ham broke the rules and so should face the consequence. Demoting them and promoting Sheffield Utd isn't going to happen, so what can be done other than compensate Sheffield for missing out on missed potential revenue.
Fining West Ham £30m could have a huge effect on the club. As we've seen in the summer, and with the resignation of Alan Curbishley, West Ham don't have much money and have sold players to try and balance the books. XL, their shirt sponsor, going bust has clearly not helped, either.
Taking £30m off them (and then the muted individual player’s claims) could potentially be the final straw - and nobody wants to see any football club in administration.
I would suggest that a £30m fine (if that is the agreed amount) be paid by the EPL - as they are the ones who seem to think West Ham have done nothing wrong. They could, in turn, deduct perhaps £1m or £2m a year from the money they would hand over to West Ham (TV money??).
The effect of this would mean:
1, Sheffield Utd get a lump sum of cash to potentially buy back a place in the EPL.
2, West Ham don't go bankrupt but are hit long term for breaking the rules.
3, The EPL realise they have to get their house in order.
4, All teams (especially the bigger ones) realise they can't just break the rules at the expense of others without consequence.
Complain about this comment
Strange isn't it how posts that challenge the blog are being moderated out, despite being full of facts, yet Shammer posts full of rumour are remaining?
Complain about this comment
I must say that I am very disappointed by this blog. Not the subject matter which is important but because of the validity of many of the things stated (mainly not pointing out huge flaws in West Ham's case).
First up, nowhere is it mentioned that THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY LAW in the UK. It simply does not exist, there are guidelines and what not but you CAN be tried for the same crime twice in the UK.
Secondly you claim that they are being charged twice for the same crime, they are not. The FA proved that WH broke the rules and punished (ha) them. This is not punishing them again this is compensating a team that lost out because WH cheated. As has been pointed out numerous times this is what happens in every other aspect of the law.
Thirdly for all this rhetoric of not allowing lawyers to rule our sports, that is not what is happening. The tribunal came about UNDER FA LAW!!! Therefore all of these ridiculous claims from WH fans that one team could sue another for losing" blah blah blah are wrong. The fact is WH broke the rules, therefore what they should be saying is "one team can sue another for cheating" which is true.
So lawyers are hardly going to take over if the FA first has to prove that one side has cheated!
I might have more sympathy for West Ham if:
1, The original tribunal hadn't said they took fans' feelings into account. That was an absolutely shocking decision.
2, The FA rules clearly state that there can be no appeal to the ruling of the tribunal. WH agreed to this but now they lost they are complaining and trying to contest the result.
N.B. Before some WH fan tries to claim that's what SU are doing it is not, the original tribunal still found WH guilty so SU are not trying to overturn that decision merely getting their due.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My take on the Tevez saga is very simple. Tevez was ineligible to play for West Ham at the time. If this had happened in any other sport, the offending team (West Ham) would have been forfeited points for every game that the ineligible player took part in. If this had happened at the time then there would not have been any comeback.
However I do feel that West Ham are the wrong party to be deemed liable. If any compensation is to be paid, it should come from the Premier League, who have been totally at fault all along. Another example of Wooly Headed Management !!!
Complain about this comment
Mihir,
Can you tell us all, HONESTLY, what team you support. I think that may have a significant impact on your Blog.
Complain about this comment
Comment 87 - But a player's value is completely based on their ability to affect the outcome of games. Therefore Tevez MUST have a huge potential to affect the outcome of games.
Complain about this comment
As a Blade, I am also tired of this argument. Surely the one thing this protracted debacle shows is that there should ONLY be the option of a points penalty in future to avoid further disputes. If the rules and punishments are there in black and white for all parties to see and comprehend then ther can be no arguments. The fact that the Premier League's constitution is so woolly is what has led to this dragging on.
Whilst I agree that the chasing of compenation does not 'enhance our image' as a club, the vast sums of money now involved with holding Premier League status meant that our Chairman had no other option than to pursue this course of action as a duty to the shareholders of the club.
The comparison between a relay race that lasted less than a minute and an entire Premier League season has to be one of the worst I have heard though.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#91.
"therefore what they should be saying is "one team can sue another for cheating" which is true."
I think the concern is that, if a player dives and wins a penalty, this is cheating. If that team goes onto win, and the other gets relegated by, say, 1 point, should they be able to sue for loss of income? This is when sport stops becoming sport, as the outcome may aswell be decided by lawyers.
Complain about this comment
Wet Sham were found Guilty of breaking the rules by the first FAPL panel - That is a FACT
Wet Sham were warned that if they did not terminate the 3rd party agreement, further punishment would follow - That is a FACT
The review panel agreed that Wet Sham had broken the rules, but should have had a points deduction and the reasons for not giving a points deduction were spurious - That is a FACT.
The High Court rulled that SUFC could not take the case to court - That is a FACT.
The FA Arbitration panel demonstrated that Tevez made a significant contribution to Wet Sham staying up. They also found evidence that Wet Sham continued to break the rules to retain the services of Tevez, directly contravening instructions from the FAPL - Those are FACTS.
Wet Sham and SUFC entered into a contract to act in good faith. Wet Sham have broken that contract. That is a FACT.
Steve Kabba is a very average (if not below average) championship-level player who has absolutely nothing to do with the case - That is a FACT.
Sheffield United Players having meetings with lawyers is a RUMOUR - In fact it seems to be a false rumour given statements from the players themselves.
The FAPL MUST STAND BY THEIR THREAT to punish Wet Sham if further deception comes to light. Leeds City, Bradford Park Avenue, Adershot and several other clubs have all been kicked out of the FA for lesser offences.
Complain about this comment
Tevez did not keep West Ham up.
For the last 30 games of the season (when Tevez was a player) West Ham and Sheffield United matched each other on points.
In the 8 games before his arival West ham got 3 more points than sheff. Unt, it was these points that seperated them at the end of the season.
Complain about this comment
Well done the person who registered comment no. 75. I'm a neutral in all this, but it has always bugged me that West Ham were made an exception of while the rules were being flouted elsewhere. Tim Howard famously did not play against Man Utd that season after signing for Everton (a 4-2 win for United, if I remember rightly), due to a gentlemens' agreement. How does this not constitute third party influence?
This is not picking on United. There is an insiduous practice whereby clubs loan out players then prevent them playing against themselves (Forsell, Bentley, Carson etc). Again how can this be accepted? A simple rule should be brought into force that says whoever holds a player's registration at a given point in time can play him against who they like.
Also the £30m amount claimed in ridiculous. Would Sheff United be that much richer if they'd stayed in the Premiership? Well their turnover may have gone up by that much, but expenses would similarly have risen (a study of pre-tax accounts posted by Prem accounts shows that the majority are loss making). A case of having your cake and eating it.
Complain about this comment
I'm still unclear as to EXACTLY what sheff utd are accusing west ham of, according to their press release at the time of the 'independent' tribunal findings, their complaint was that west ham fielded an ineligible player, i.e. Tevez, at the end of the 06/07 season, presumably their point being that he was still ineligible AFTER the original fine of £5M ish was handed down to west ham, at which point Tevez's contract was ripped-up and re-drawn, the new contract being OK'd by the powers that be in the league system.
Whereas west ham's official response didn't seem to tackle this issue at all, instead it made very valid ( but apparently irrelevant ) comments about one player not making a team successful.
Can someone confirm for me exactly what the charge is ?
If the charge is as I understand it then surely sheff utd's issue is with the league for rubber stamping a contract which was still in breach of whatever rules are applicable, rules which apply to west ham, but apparently not liverpool or man utd, but that's a whole other issue !!
Furthermore i believe that whoever is in the wrong in this instance that it is essential for the future of football that this case be made null and void and any such future cases be banned, if not then the flood of litigation which will follow will destroy the game, imagine how many clubs each season get relegated by the odd point or two, miss out on promotion by the odd point or two, miss out on a cup final or play-off final because of a bad refereeing decision or a bad tackle, if all of those clubs think they can gain financial recompense by suing another club, a ref, the FA, the Premier league etc. then we'll have a situation where at least a third of the clubs in the league will be in the courtrooms every season, obviously this will turn the game into a farce. Given the history on such matters though, i suspect that what will happen is that west ham will be forced to pay this 'fine' and THEN the rules will be changed before it happens to a more fashionable club, just like the laws on the so-called 'third party ownership' were.
Finally, if west ham are looking for another line of defence they should just do the maths, i.e. how many points did west ham take against sheff utd compared to the number of points they took off the other clubs who narrowly avoided relegation, in the contested part of the season ?
the relevant results were:
West Ham 2-0 Midlesborough
West Ham 3-0 Wigan
Sheff Utd 3 - 0 West ham
Sorry blades fans, it wasn't Tevez that sent you down, you did it to yourselves, and if you must point the finger then surely it should be done internally, if the club had been fully focused on their football, rather than one of another teams players, you wouldn't be where you are now !
Complain about this comment
"But they also have a more central, call it philosophical, argument: They need to win for the sake of sport."
Yes, Sheffield United are terrible for trying to make sure that those who repeatedly break the rules are properly punished.
Complain about this comment
#102.
I thought loan players not playing against the team that owns them is a FA rule, as the player may have mixed priorities.
Complain about this comment
Everyone posting has a point, I guess, but I agree that the time to complain was as soon as this came out in the open. At the time many clubs talked about suing West Ham but none did as they thought they would stay up. Tevez did have an important role to play in the run-in but he wasn't exactly settng the place alight in his first few games with the Hammers. In fact I seem to remember that when he was signed, West Ham were not in the predicament they found themselves later. No one was looking for justice when they thought it did not concern them. No one was interested in backing Sheff Utd once they were no longer in danger. No one in this fiasco has the right to take the moral high ground. They are all as bad as each other.
Complain about this comment
People are saying that West Ham should have been deducted at least 3 points for their violations, but that is assuming that all the other results after that deduction would have remained the same, and quite possibly they would not have. West Ham may have picked up wins instead of draws, thus finishing well above Sheff Utd anyway. The point here is, assumptions can not and should not be made on football matches that have been played. West Ham were punished with a 5.5 million pound fine, and no points deduction has got nothing to do with West Ham being in the south of England. Sheff Utd only scored 8 goals away from home, and had the 2nd worse away record in the league, that is why they were relegated.
Complain about this comment
Posts that mention the PROVEN case that Wet Sham cheated are removed as defamatory.
Posts that call Neil Warnock a rubbish manager (I couldn't possibly comment! ;->) and the players members of a poor team stay?
Is one (or more) of the moderators a Shammer? Quite likely seeing as they're based in London.
Censorship at the BBC? Whatever next?
Complain about this comment
Can someone else please confirm my understanding of cheating?
If someone breaks the rules, they are cheating. Is that not the right definition?
Complain about this comment
If we continue to talk and argue about "what if's" in football, Sheff Utd can blame Steve Mclaren for their relegation. You see, he picked Dean Ashton for England, who then got injured for the whole season. So West Ham played Tevez instead of Ashton, and Sheff Utd say Tevez alone kept West Ham up, but he might not have been playing if Ashton had been there. Again, this is another assumption, an assumption that can not over turn what actually happened. West Ham were punished by the prem league, and if Sheff Utd don't like that punishment, they should sue the league and not West Ham.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Please people are making up stuff and calling them facts, keep repeating them and people will believe them
If any similiar case arose, there is still no set penalty for the offence.
Scudamore tried to get the Premier League clubs to agree to set penalties for breaking rules, the clubs voted against it probably for ther own self interest.
This was the first case ever to come to light of this type, it doesn't mean it hasn't happened before.
If a Premier League panel was set up again for rule breaking, it would be up to that panel to decide if it was worthy of a fine or points deduction.
There are STILL NO penalties written down in black and white for particular offences in the Premier League rules.
As for the Arbitration both sides are meant to sign up to it willingly, FA rules forced West Ham into entering it which goes against English Law on arbitration.
All the other panels were went to be binding on Sheff Utd but they ignored those.
Now West Ham are meant to accept a decision arrived by panel led by a judge of 85 years of age with little knowledge of football.
Some people on here really do not understand the possible repurcussions of this landmark decision and the damage it could do to football.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Wet Sham were found Guilty of breaking the rules by the first FAPL panel - That is a FACT" Correct
"Wet Sham were warned that if they did not terminate the 3rd party agreement, further punishment would follow - That is a FACT" Correct
"The review panel agreed that Wet Sham had broken the rules, but should have had a points deduction and the reasons for not giving a points deduction were spurious - That is a FACT." There was no precedent for a points deduction as the specific problem had not occurred before. A world record fine was decided to be the right course of action
"The High Court rulled that SUFC could not take the case to court - That is a FACT." Yet they continued to fight it despite being told on numerous occasions that they were wrong until they got someone to agree with them
"The FA Arbitration panel demonstrated that Tevez made a significant contribution to Wet Sham staying up. "Zamora scored more goals so had a bigger effect that Tevez. Who was to say that Sheringham or Harewood, had they played, wouldn't have had a bigger impact, being established Premiership players?
"They also found evidence that Wet Sham continued to break the rules to retain the services of Tevez, directly contravening instructions from the FAPL - Those are FACTS." Not true. They hear hearsay evidence without any sort of proof presented. There were no written agreements, no contracts, nothing to say this was the case. This is akin to Man U telling Everton they couldn't play Howard. In other words an alledged gentlemans agreement.
Wet Sham and SUFC entered into a contract to act in good faith. Wet Sham have broken that contract. That is a FACT. Correct. But so did Man U, Everton, Sheffield United, Watford....
Steve Kabba is a very average (if not below average) championship-level player who has absolutely nothing to do with the case - That is a FACT. Not true. It does highlight that Sheffield United were guilty of the same offence, having 3rd party influence over another teams selection.
Sheffield United Players having meetings with lawyers is a RUMOUR - In fact it seems to be a false rumour given statements from the players themselves. Correct
"The FAPL MUST STAND BY THEIR THREAT to punish Wet Sham if further deception comes to light. Leeds City, Bradford Park Avenue, Adershot and several other clubs have all been kicked out of the FA for lesser offences." This is immaterial as they were found guilty of completely different offences.
Complain about this comment
Re 105
That is the case but in the case of Man U, they SOLD Howard to Everton.
Sheffield United SOLD Kabbe to Watford.
They should not be able to demand the removal of those players from the team that play against them.
Complain about this comment
All PL clubs sign an agreement at the start of every season agreeing to stand by any decisions of the PL arbitrary Committee, including West Ham and Sheff Utd.
West Ham were fined a record £5.5m. At the time it was the Wigan Chairman who was causing a big stink about the decision, even though they had also signed this agreement, Sheff Utd didn't say a word because they had a big lead over the relegation teams and looked safe. The PL and West Ham had waived any right to Appeal before the decision, yet the PL then went back and reviewed the decision and decided it was just.
Sheffield Utd then beat West Ham after the ruling, again no word of dissent from them, but once they started to lose games and had to beat Wigan at home to stay up they started bleating like sheep at a slaughterhouse.
This has nothing to do with Tevez, or West Ham. Sheff Utd didn't want to be relegated for being one of the worst teams in the PL 2007 season and this is why they have taken the case outside of football. Sheff Utd have already received a Parachute payment from the PL for being relegated, yet they are greedy and want more. If this case continues and West Ham are made to pay it opens up all sorts of arguments for other teams to do the same:
This season, if Chelsea miss out on the PL to Man U after Hull had held them to a draw in December, they can sue Hull for loss of earnings as Hull tried harder to beat them, or because they had Geovanni and he played a blinder.
Maybe Derby can sue the whole PL (except Newcastle and Fulham) for thrashing them and making them buy Robbie Savage as they have lost a lot on his wages and still more because they are not in the PL this season.
Bolton are relegated and sue Rob Stiles for the penalty he gave at Old Trafford last week, because with that point, they would have stayed above the next team.
Now that there is the precedent, what is next? This could mean complete anarchy within the PL.
Complain about this comment
I agree with squaremonkee.
Tevez had nothing to do with them bottling it against Wigan.
I am a Northerner and support a Northern team (no not Wednesday!) and I don't really buy this whole London teams are favoured. Man U are the most favoured team, more so than anyone from London.
Quit yo jibba jabba Blades!
Complain about this comment
I agree - this was the first case to come to light and possibly isn't the only one. That may be key in why the FAPL have been trying to brush it under the carpet - It could open a whole murky can of worms. Just like the BBC expose on dodgy agents has been quietly forgotten.
The principle seems to be based on 'Yesterday's news is Today's chip paper'.
'Tapping up' isn't allowed, but we all know it goes on through the papers. But it impossible to prove.
I also agree that penalties should be written down. The only problem is that an unforeseen breach of the rules will occur, as this case proves.
The damage to football was done when the rule breaking occurred, not by the chasing for punishment of the rule breakers. To Say SUFC are damaging football is wrong. To say the money men are damaging (top level) football is probably more accurate.
'Loans' and 'loans with an option to buy' are a bit dodgy and should probably not be allowed between teams in the same division except in exceptional circumstances (emergency loan-type arrangement) - but that would probably have a bigger impact on teams lower down the leagues.
Complain about this comment
#115.
I agree that there should be no "gentleman's agreement" about signed players not playing against previous clubs. I was only refering to the part were you seem to question why loan players shouldn't be allowed to play against their owning clubs.
Complain about this comment
Re the post by goatero::
A sworn statement is not proof and in this case it is hearsay. Did Duxbury himself testify in corroboration and, indeed, did Joorbachian, I think not. The only issue to be resolved is whether Tevez was a legal player or not and this would be best resolved in a court of LAW. Whatever the outcome, Sheffield United blew it in the way they fielded an under strength side against Man U and contrived to lose to Wigan.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In the case of Kabba and Howard they were no longer loan players but were Watford and Everton players when they missed the games against there former clubs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Sheffield Utd then beat West Ham after the ruling, again no word of dissent from them, but once they started to lose games and had to beat Wigan at home to stay up they started bleating like sheep at a slaughterhouse."
Untrue - Right from the announcement of the punishment, Charlton, Watford, United, Wigan, Fulham and Middlesbrough were all saying they would fight this injustice.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Does Mr Joorabchian still work for West Ham?
Complain about this comment
A question for the Sheffield United supporters, your chairman seems to think he knows exactly how much Tevez’s contribution was worth over the whole season.
Can you tell us how much he thinks his own players performances contributed to the clubs lowly total of 38 points or how much his own manager’s failure to play a full team in every game contributed to their downfall ?
As painful as it is for the real Sheffield United fans your own clubs action were just as responsible for your relegation as was the premier leagues reaction to West Hams rule breaking.
Any claim for compensation would always take into account how much the claimant themselves were responsible and what action they took to prevent the eventual outcome. Something McCabe seems to want to ignore.
On a last note as far as I am aware the tribunals full findings have not been made public yet, but once again we see so many supposedly informed fans out there how seem to think they know everything that has been said, truth be known once again it is only McCabe’s leaks to the press that many are basing their arguments on, hardly a balanced view on the outcome!
Complain about this comment
Re 126
He never worked for the club.
He did want to buy it though.
He is used as a transfer consultant but I don't know if it's a permanent appointment or used when necessary for a fee.
Complain about this comment
Guanajuanto,
I like the fact that you keep completely ignoring the fact that Tevez also played in the majority if West Ham games that they lost, including against Sheffield United.
I also like the fact that you keep getting so worked up, to the point that the moderators keep deleting your posts and you then call it southern censorship.
If it were Charlton fans who were sueing then West Ham would be the northerners wouldn't they? But the fact is, Charlton don't carry a big inferiority complex and a chip on their shoulder and would have more dignity than blaming everyone else for not being good enough.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It's all a bit silly this suing each other business. Once a precedent like this has been set there is no telling where it could end.
I do have a lot of sympathy for Sheffield United though. It's natural to be bitter when you lose out at the hands of cheaters.
But financially ruining West Ham Utd is not really the answer. Even if they do maybe deserve it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Kia Joorabchian does work for many Premier League clubs including Man City and West Ham.
Whats the opinion of people regarding 'truth and justice in football' and Brian Howard threatening to go on strike if he doesn't get his tranfer.
Would Barnsley be within there rights to take legal action at the end of the season if they feel it may have cost them points?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Would we even be having this discussion if West ham finished, say 10th!
Complain about this comment
The difference between the US 400m relay team and the West Ham is clear. The 400m race was a 1 off event, the fact West finished above Shefield at the end of the season was not the result of a single game. In fact West Ham lost or drew more games with and without Tevez that season than they won, so how could Tevez be the reason for West Ham finishing above Shefield. Shefield had the chance to score 114 points that season just like anyone else, other than the 6 points against West Ham directly West Ham had no involvement in how many points they scored that season. They only have themselves to blam for not winning more matches. As many have now said are we to question every decision made by the FA or a referee at the end of the season to try to reset what points may have been scored. If a player get a suspension is that to be questioned later as to what contribution he may have had, and what about the recent goal that never was! Things have to remain as they are judged at the time and PL judgment to fine west Ham should have been the end of it.
Complain about this comment
As a Luton supporter I have to ask . . .
- we were honest, West Ham weren't on multiple occasions.
- our offences were agreed by the FA to bbe purely technical in nature with NO on field or financial advantage being gained.
We got docked ten points.
All of the mitigation factors cited for West Ham applied to us in at least equal if not greater measure.
The FA and the Premier League are in complete disarray and it is their shocking lack of control and consistency that has lead to this. WH and Sheff Utd can afford huge legal bills, clubs like Luton can't.
Lawyers and being able to afford them will encroach increasingly on how football matters on the field are decided. The footballing authorities are allowing this to happen through sheer incompetence.
Complain about this comment
As a Hammer, none of us Hammers are saying we should not have been docked points for this, but we were not.
The truth is, this is the first of its kind that the FA had to deal with and it was a grey matter which was resolved in January and the FA dealt with this what they thought was a fair punishment. So once it was ok'ed by the FA, you cant surely blame WHU for beyond that.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think firstly tevez played shit for the majority of the season. Then played well for a couple of games at the end. So if he wasn't playing in all honesty west ham probably would have done even better. Secondly why are people reacting like west ham has 12 players on the pitch west ham would have had someone else on if not him so why do people care so much. The difference between him and there other attackers at the time were pretty much exactly the same so to say that he was the sole reason they stayed up is rediculas. And everyone is skipping past the fact, why do we have this law in the first place, football is an entertainment why does it matter if they are third party owned or not. Get rid of this stupid law. If the person has agreed to allow there player to play for west ham and west ham are willing to pay the wage and the price for him. Who cares. Get rid of this law. And finally for god sake sheffield united grow up you got relegated because you were rubbish, THE BEST 21 TEAMS SHOULD STAY UP AND WEST HAM WAS ONE AD SHEFFIELD UNITED WASN'T.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As for sporting matters being decided by complex legal arguments, I take it that Mihir doesn't follow Formula 1. Grand Prix results have been challenged and overturned in the courts for many years now. I think this is the real price of football becoming a big money sport. As we get more billionaire owners in the Premier League, the likelihood of legal challenges by relegated clubs will increase.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Before I start, I am a Sheff Wed fan but have a lot of sympathy for the way Sheff United went down. however, I do think this has gone way too far.
West Ham broke the rules, and were punished by the Premier League. I agree they should heve been deducted points, but weren't, resulting in Sheff Uniteds relegation. So how can United now sue West Ham? Why not sue the Premier Leafgue for not deducting points? Because the Prem is the final arbiter of all occurences in its jurisdiction (which include player eligability). WHU broke premier leagure rules (no law) and were punished by the Premier League. If West Ham did not beak any UK law, then how can SU now be talking about suing in a court of law? What happens the next time the FA or Premier League make a decision against one club that adversely affects another?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
West Ham broke Premiership rules when they signed Tevez and Mascherano while the
agent , a third party retained ownership. This was to save them paying a transfer
fee . This came to light on Mascherano's transfer to Liverpool .
Each match that Tevez and Mascherano played in , the were guilty of fielding an
ineligible player , the usual punishment iis that any points from the match are
forfeit or in the case of a Cup match the game is awarded to the other team (Chester
v Bury).
Tevez's effect , each match he played in , he was ineligible , so any points won by
West Ham when he played should be forfeit.
Instead they were fined 5.5 M knowing they would gain 40m from staying in the Prem.
Complain about this comment
Sour grapes from Sheff Utd, looking for a scapegoat for their own inadequacies in the last 11 games. They were in a position of safety and have only themselves to blame.
On a wider note, it sets a dangerous precedent for the sport as whole. For example, if Watford get relegated by 1 point, are they in a position to sue Stuart Atwell, the referee in charge, or Reading, or the Championship? Or indeed if Reading are promoted by 1 point, would the teams around them have the same inclination?
A ruling has been made, that should be the end of the story. Agreed, a bad decision was made in not docking West Ham points. But, that decision was made and the not inconsiderable sum of £5.5m as a penalty was demanded. How is it that now a group of lawyers can make an assessment that one player had an effect on West Ham's run in to the season? That is ridculous. The whole thing should be thrown out as a laughing stock!
Complain about this comment
The lawyers wouldn't be involved if West Ham hadn't broken the rules, therefore their claim that it wouldn't be in the interests of football to allow lawyers to decide sporting issues is more than a little bit hollow.
Complain about this comment
"I like the fact that you keep completely ignoring the fact that Tevez also played in the majority if West Ham games that they lost, including against Sheffield United."
The fact is West Ham broke the rules and lied to the FAPL on several occasions - whether that was to be allowed to play Tevez or to be allowed to play a chimpanzee is irrelevant. The fact is they broke the rules. They have been found guilty of this, and as the luton fan pointed out, other teams breaking rule regarding unfairly fielding players have had points docked.
"I also like the fact that you keep getting so worked up, to the point that the moderators keep deleting your posts and you then call it southern censorship."
No, the moderators have removed my post for 'potential defamatory' comments. When I replaced an 8-letter word beginning with 'C' with "Broke the rules" posts have been allowed. When I went possibly a little OTT regarding the whole can of worms that has been opened, the post was removed. When I asked about Mr Joorabchian's status with west ham following the out of court settlement, the post was removed. I have not claimed 'Southern Censorship' - I made a sarcy comment about Censorship, and stated that as the BBC is based in London, it is quite likely to employ people from London. People from London are more likely to support West Ham than SUFC. Would you not agree? Not ONCE have I resorted to obscenities or borderline racial slurs as some other posters have done.
"If it were Charlton fans who were sueing then West Ham would be the northerners wouldn't they? But the fact is, Charlton don't carry a big inferiority complex and a chip on their shoulder and would have more dignity than blaming everyone else for not being good enough."
Would you care to show me the post where I said it was a North-South thing? You won't find it, and not because its been removed. You won't find it because I said that the reporting seems to favour west ham rather than Sheffield United because west ham are a 'media darling' club - they won the '66 world cup donchaknow. I suspect Charlton would have had exactly the same media treatment had it been them in SUFC's position.
"THE BEST 21 TEAMS SHOULD STAY UP AND WEST HAM WAS ONE AD SHEFFIELD UNITED WASN'T."
But if one of those 21 teams is better because they have broken the rules, is it not reasonable to be aggrieved?
If you wonder why United fans feel a little aggrieved, look up the changes to administration rules following Leicester's shenanigans. Look up Hans Segers and the changes to the Loan system after that. See if you can find out the club that suffered most. Finally we have a chairman who has been willing to stand up and say enough is enough. Ancient history no doubt you'll say.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Any Super League Rugby League fans on here? This season Hull F.C fielded an ineligible player, Jamie Thackary in the Challenge cup tournament- arguably Rugby League's most prestigious trophy. He scored vital tries in at least two rounds of the competition that contributed to Hull winning those games.
Hull went on to play him in the knock-out stages and even went on to reach the final- where they played him. Was there any complaints from the teams who were knocked out by Hull at this stage? These included Bradford- a high profile team whose views could potentially be influential. No- because Hull were punished accordingly through a fine beforehand. They took their punishment, paid the price of cheating, and thus were allowed to carry on playing Thackary and on with their own business as usual. A bit like West Ham- okay the outcome- relegation, loss of money etc are different, but it's essentially the same sort of case. So why can't Sheffiled Utd just accept that? If they think they have the right to compensation, pursue this from the FA. As others have rightly pointed out, teams such as Charlton and Watford have just as much right to complain and launch an appeal, but their actions take place where it matters, on the pitch.
Football is a sport played by full time professionals, there should be no room for cry babies.
Complain about this comment
a. the premier leaguer back the trendy London club over northerners – where there not 3 London clubs in the relegation battle
b. people keep using clubs that have gone into administration getting docked points as opposed to fines as some kind of example, so should we now give these clubs fines, can someone explain how this would work.
c. What ever way you look at it, the impact of Tevez and mascarano on the club was negative, that’s why we where bottom of the league, the seaon before with the same team without those 2 we finished 7th and reached the cup final, the season after he left we finished 10th, during the season when they played we scored less points than when they didn’t play.
d. Tevez is on loan at man united and at the end of season he’ll be off at the descression of his 3rd party owner, plain and simple, all they have is a more carefully thought out contract but in effect no difference,
e. 3rd party ownership at the time was not illegal only now is it illegal (except at man u) Tevez was never illegible, do you think we snuck him onto the pitch without anybody seeing, it was quite a high profile deal if anyone remembers, west ham where given permission to play him from the PL. if as is said new evidence has come to light surely it’s down to premier league to judge on it’s relevance, as they would be aware how much they knew or didn’t know and where involved throughout the whole sorry episode.
Complain about this comment
Also west ham didn’t win the 66 world cup, the 3 best players on the pitch couldn’t win the world cup on their own,
It’s team effort………..I’m sure you’d agree yes
Complain about this comment
#158
"c. What ever way you look at it, the impact of Tevez and mascarano on the club was negative, that?s why we where bottom of the league, the seaon before with the same team without those 2 we finished 7th and reached the cup final, the season after he left we finished 10th, during the season when they played we scored less points than when they didn?t play."
You can't really use "we did ok last season, so we would have been ok this season" as an arguement. It is impossible to say how West Ham would have got on without Tevez.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
*Sigh*
"West Ham broke Premiership rules when they signed Tevez and Mascherano while the agent , a third party retained ownership. This was to save them paying a transfer fee . This came to light on Mascherano's transfer to Liverpool ."
No they didn't. They had a seperate agreement that the owners could move them without consultation. This is considered 3rd party influence and subsequently against the rules. The pair were signed ON LOAN. No transfer fee was ever going to be paid, it never is ON LOAN SIGNINGS. Yes, MSI did retain ownership, the same way that any club loaning a player to another club retains ownership. They were both REGISTERED to West Ham as required.
"Each match that Tevez and Mascherano played in , the were guilty of fielding an
ineligible player , the usual punishment iis that any points from the match are
forfeit or in the case of a Cup match the game is awarded to the other team (Chester
v Bury)."
No they weren't. Tevez was registered correctly to play for West Ham. He was registered correctly for every single game he played in. West Ham were not in breach of the rules regarding registration.
"Tevez's effect , each match he played in , he was ineligible , so any points won by
West Ham when he played should be forfeit."
No he wasn't. No they shouldn't.
"Instead they were fined 5.5 M knowing they would gain 40m from staying in the Prem."
Do you think West Ham had a say in the punishment?
You would think that, seeing as this has been ongoing for nigh on 2 years, people would know what the problem/offence was rather than spouting all sorts of nonsense about inelligble players.
Complain about this comment
#160
By the same token, it is impossible for the arbitration panel to say what the positive impact Tevez had as well.
Complain about this comment
@ 160
This is the point, it is insane to say we could or couldn’t or what might or might not have happened but I’m saying if your ganna take 1 game or 9 games, surely you need to take into account, 38 games and then other seasons to stand any chance of actually working the impact of a player on a team.
But if you look at the bigger picture it shows a completely picture to the ruling made by the panel.
Complain about this comment
Post 152, Mickey Dred - spot on. If they broke the rules, the players were ineligible, therefore if they touched the field of play then any points would be forfeit, even if West Ham won 10-0
Complain about this comment
#164 and 165
I suppose I should probably point out that my opinion is that you cannot possibly say what impact Tevez had. So the whole issue with Sheffield United suing is ridiculous, it cannot possibly be proved that they went down as a result of Tevez playing for West Ham.
It is equally ridiculous arguing (not that anybody is, I'm just saying) "We'd have won if we'd have got that penalty" or something similar, because that's not how the world works. Cause and effect and what not. However, the BBC boards always seem to be full of this!
From reading back my comments, I feel that they may have been read as having a go at you guys, which I'm not. I'm of the opinion that West Ham cheated, they've been punished (whether the punishment was harsh enough is another matter) and that SUFC should accept that. If they don't accept it, surely their gripe is with the FA who did not sanction the points deduction they were after.
Complain about this comment
Here we all are talking about a possible £30m compensation when, any settlement was not even due to have discussions started until today, so who came up with £30m and why is the number in the public domain ?
Well in my opinion you only have to look back at the previous hearings and tribunals, one side was constantly leaking stories about what facts they had and how damming they would be and very often nothing ever came of these so called facts, they were just used to whip up the media frenzy and earn sympathy for their case, now here we are again with leaks being made about the unpublished ruling and a settlement number being quoted even before the tribunal has sat down to deliberate it.
Just an aside for the statisticians in the 13 seasons the premier league has consisted of 20 teams the average number of points required to avoided relegation 39.
Complain about this comment
The argument i hear a lot now and have come to agree with, is that it is the FA that owe Sheffield United compensation, and not West Ham;
It was the FA who made the decision to fine the Hammers and retain the Blades' relegation from the premiership. West Ham didnt make that decision, West Ham should not be held accountable for the cost of it. It was the FA that put Sheffield into the Championship and let West Ham stay in the Premiership, West Ham paid their fine, any further cost that is supposedly incurred as a result should be paid by the FA, not the Hammers.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The players were NEVER ineligible according to the Premier League!
A rule was broken on third party influence that broke Premier League rules but not FA or FIFA rules.
Other leagues in Europe and South America don't have this rule, Scudamore actually said the Premier League is the only league in the world that has this rule.
The FA and FIFA said both players were registered and were never ineligible.
Can people just stop listening to propaganda a rule on contracts was broken, which the Premier League said if it had been sorted out at the beginning as the Liverpool and Man U deals were, it wouldn't have been a problem.
Complain about this comment
I still see many on here referring to the FA and the punishment it handed out, well this is wrong and is in my opinion one of the reasons this is all still going on. All the original punishments and tribunals were under the Premier League not the F.A. The F.A. wanted nothing to do with this at the time and it is my understanding that just as there is nothing against 3rd party ownership/influence in FIFA or UFEA rules there was nothing in F.A. rules about third party ownership at the time.
In my opinion what we are seeing now has much to do with the F.A.’s relationship with the Premier League, or is it just coincidence that this is the first tribunal run by the F.A.
Complain about this comment
If West Ham were deducted points that would have meant certain relegation. Would West Ham have given their all or would they have just played the rest of the season as a Sunday afternoon kick about? I believe the latter, and that would have had a bigger influence, not just on relegation issues but Champions League and UEFA cup places as well. The Premier League punished West Ham the way they saw fit with the least disruption to all the other league teams. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm not sure why the issue of quantifying Tevez's contribution is at all being discussed. Take for example the case of Lupton v White- where the defendant mixes the claimant's property with his own so that it is no longer identifiable, it is presumed that the whole belongs to the claimant. The defendant must show that he contributed to the mixed bulk of property. In other words evidentiary problems such as the Tevez affair arise all the time in the law- and we solve them by presuming against the wrongdoer. West Ham broke the rules- THEY have created the evidentiary difficulties here- so they should have the burden of proving that Tevez did not contribute to their survival. That is how it works at law- I find it quite disconcerting that lawyers are being treated like they have no place in this discussion. The fact is that lawyers have much more experience than most lay people in cases such as this, and that also means that we have developed ways to achieve the most sensible and just results. We see this all the time- with discussions on Match of the Day and the Sky Sports studios often descedning into arguments about laws and their application. I'm not saying that lawyers should be running the sport, but maybe that we have a fresh perspective on a number of issues that are raiseed by the beautiful game.
Complain about this comment
gebreeze,
This question is (very) off subject, but just for my own understanding, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't "presuming against the wrongdoer" contradict "innocent until proven guilty"? May be completely irrelevant, but like I said, I'm just curoius!!!
Complain about this comment
I find it fascinating that most West Ham fans are adopting a defensively aggressive stance on this issue, name calling, wildly inaccurate claims etc. Maybe a list of irrefutable facts might be in order:
West Ham United signed Tevez and Mascherano, Argentinians international with a combined value of approximately £50m on contracts which gave a 3rd party influence over both players. Such influence is forbidden by Premier League rules.
After a lengthy delay, the Premier League imposed a fine of £5.5m on West Ham. Whilst admitting that a points deduction was considered, it was decided against imposing such a penalty, as to do so at that stage would guarantee relegation and ‘upset the fans’.
West Ham were told that if they ripped up the offending contract then Tevez would be available for the final 3 games of the season. West Ham told the Premier League that this was the case, Tevez played the final 3 games, scored 3 goals, provided 3 assists and was instrumental in West Ham winning all 3 games and staying up.
Sheffield United appealed against the decision not to deduct points, and whilst the commission said that they had every sympathy, and themselves would have imposed a points deduction, they were unable to overturn the decision.
Sheffield United and West Ham then entered into a binding tribunal re compensation, Sheffield United claiming that West Ham had benefited by playing an illegally registered player.
This tribunal uncovered evidence that West Ham had lied with regard to ripping up the offending contract, and had in fact secretly promised to honour it. This enabled Tevez to play in the last 3 matches, as the Premier League had stated that had they not received the assurances from West Ham, then they would not have allowed Tevez to play in these games. They found in Sheffield United’s favour and further meetings to decide the amount due to Sheffield United must now take place.
In the meantime, West Ham are seeking to appeal against the decision to CAS and possibly the High Court, despite signing agreements that they would abide by the findings.
The Premier League has yet to comment on the findings, and whether or not they will take any further action against West Ham over accusations of deceit over the ripping up of the offending contract.
West Ham fans accuse Sheffield United of 3rd party interference in the Steve Kabba affair. This transfer was investigated thoroughly by the Premier League, and no wrongdoing was found to have taken place, and no 3rd party agreement existed.
West Ham fans also accuse Sheffield United of playing a weakened side v Manchester United, thus neglecting their duty to the other title chasing sides. Their line up that day was Kenny, Morgan, Jagielka, Shelton, Webber, Kozluk, Kilgallon, Montgomery, Tonge, Geary, Kazim Richards.
The only non-regular in that side was Shelton, who is a full international, performed excellently and was Sheffield United’s man of the match. This cannot in any way, shape or form be considered a weakened side.
There is nothing in this account that is not factual.
Complain about this comment
Sheff Utd were really given a raw deal here
the west ham effect was clearly significant. However I dont think that west ham can take all the blame. the premier league got it wrong west ham should have been deducted points relegated and thats that. if compensation due to sheff utd should come from premier league for getting it wrong.
Secondly fulham were very poor that year, got virtually no points at end of season but got 3 pts against liverpool. Liverpool fielded a virtual reserve team in that fixture. They had a champions league fixture midweek and the league was irrelevant for them. Fulham survived because of these 3 points.
The whole thing is a bit of a mess and sheff utd got a really raw deal.
if wigan had lost to sheff u on last game of season then they would be fighting same battle. the Wigan chairman gave full suport to sheff in their action and that is also imprortant.
ultimately there is no excuse West Ham should have been relegated. Absolutely amazing that they were not.
Complain about this comment
I am a man utd fan and I think that even if west ham played tevez at the end of the season Sheff Utd would have still gone down because they didn't have enough points. It is nothing to do with tevez on his own because west ham played well near the end of the season and played well as a team not just with tevez as the individual.
Complain about this comment
You guys are really going round in circles now, but you could all save yourslves a lot of effort if you read the tribunal report before makingg further comment. The report explains how it comes to value the Tevez contribution over the season as a whole as at least being worth 3 points.
Both the original independent commission and the tribunal were in agreement that the Premier League WOULD NOT have allowed Tevez to be registered if the whole truth about his contractual status had been revealed to them. (Registration criteria are the responsibility of the competition to which they apply - entirely independent of FIFA).
There is no double jeopardy in this case. WHU were punished for breaching Rules B13 and U18. This case is about the consequences of breaching the rules and the effect it had on one other party who suffered material damage as a result of the breach.
The effect of SUFC's own poor performance as a factor in tandem with the rule breach is considered in depth by the tribunal and is an important legal point well covered by case law.
Complain about this comment
#178
Where is the precedent that says West Ham should have been relegated?
Can you provide evidence that this particular offence has occurred and a team were deducted points/relegated for it?
I bet you can't!
The PL fined West Ham.
That's it.
A Fine.
Whether it was right is up to the PL to decide, not Sheffield United.
Complain about this comment
# 180
I have read the judgement and the panel does NOT consider the impact over the whole season, they, in fact, dimiss it and concentrate on the last nine games and even said that West Ham were three points better off in the last 2 games with Tevez.
The judgement is majorly flawed in it's argument of supposition and mystical fortune telling. How on earth can a panel decide that Tevez was worth "at least 3 points"?
He may well have COST West Ham 5 times as many points by excluding our leading goal scorer from the previous season.
Zamora scored half as many goals again as Tevez, is he worth 5 points a season?
Green kept 5 clean sheets in the last 9 games, is he worth 8 points a season?
You can't tell and neither can the panel. It was a ridiculous statement and one which will prove the undoing of the Arbitration Panel.
Complain about this comment
West Ham Broke the rules. That is undeniable - They admitted to that. They did not 'act in good faith' to ALL the other teams in the FAPL.
Following the initial punishment, they were warned as to their future conduct. By sending a letter to the parties to a contract, they seem to have been deemed to have terminated the contract, irrespective of whether the other parties agreed. Seems odd to me.
If west ham suffer, it's the fans I would feel sorry for - they have done no wrong. However, to take their feelings into account (therefore placing their feelings above those of fans of other clubs) was wrong. Granted, West Ham didn't have any direct influence on that. The West Ham club/business should suffer the consequences.
Yes, they pulled off an incredible escape, but that is irrelevant. To those using other sports as precedents - those sports have written punishments for certain offences. e.g. When Yorkshire fielded a british-born youth player who had come through their ranks, he was ineligible as an overseas player because he held a Pakistani passport. A genuine mistake. In the game, his performance was poor. However, the punishment was expulsion from the tournament. They had no comeback because they had agreed to that rule, even if they didn't realise it applied.
If it was Wednesday, Leeds or even West Ham suffering, I'd be just as opposed to the way they seem to be getting away with things.
Had the FAPL acted properly and investigated the situation when it first appeared in the papers (ie September) then the whole issue could have been nipped in the bud. Richard Scudamore and Dave Richards are as much to blame for the whole mess as West Ham's personnel and Kia Joorabchian.
Finally, good luck to the Shammers - Hope to not see you next year. But we might if you get an additional punishment for the continued deceptions.
Complain about this comment
Can those of you that claim to have read the tribunals findings, please tell me where it is available for public consumption?
Complain about this comment
Why was the registration not dealt with properly at the start? Surely the west ham franchsie had to submit the correct paperwork? How can it have taken a whole season to work this out?
Complain about this comment
I see the same old people are repeating the same old mantra again.
The Premier sent out a letter in May 2007 to all Premier League clubs and stated that Tevez was alway a registered player and at no time was he ineligible to play.
The arbitration panel used an example of contract law, 'Chitty' when our contract was with the Premier League.
West Ham were punished by the Premier League who they had the contract with and that should of been end the matter.
Sheff Utd were whilst a Premier League were bound by the same contract, which could with there actions prove interesting if they were ever promoted what would happen.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure I agree with West Ham's contention that this is similar to a double jeopardy situation. If you look at sport as a world in and of itself and compare it the "real" world then the FA would be like a state government and clubs would be citizens. Any punishment handed out would be like being charged and convicted of a crime. Which the FA did with the fine, similar to what might happen to a "real" world citizen. At the same time the Sheffield United is a citizen as well and the crime in a way was committed not only against the state (the FA) but also them. As a result they have a right to sue them in civil court versus the state bring charges in criminal court. This is not double jeopardy these are two separate cases with albeit similar offenses brought in two separate courts.
I also think this is a unique situation which does not and will not happen very often and as a result will not set as strong a precedence as some people think.
Anyway thats just my two cents into this complicated issue.
Complain about this comment
My response to wolf pack (no names, please.... says it all) is that he is factually incorrect:
"the other clubs did no wrong"
So, despite all parties pretty much openly admitting that there was a 3rd party agreement (albeit not in writing) that Steve Kabba would not play against his old club when the blades won 1-0 you are trying to say that the poor blades were victims of 3rd party influence not perpetrators. What next West Ham to counterclaim about the watford game and whether Kabba would have scored against his old club and denied them a further two points if not all three? Ex-players always seem to score against everyone. Interestingly, West Ham are only guilty of entering into a 3rd party agreement rather than actually honouring it and allowing it to affect playing matters (unlike SU who did both behind the leagues back). I could also point the finger at numerous other clubs (MU chief amongst them) who have broken this same rule in exactly the same way but that would be churlish!
Complain about this comment
A lot of defence in favour of West Ham goes along the lines of 'one player cannot influence the season'.
This of course is rubbish and they are fooling themselves.
Who do people think kept Southampton in the top flight for more than a decade? Francis Benali?
Tevez's play once he hit form in the run-in single handedly kept West Ham up... Ok, people are siting Ashton as a strong influence, but if Tevez was not playing WHUFC would have gone down. If it wasn't down to him, why would a player who jumped ship days after safety be so lauded at Upton Park every time he returns. He even scored a brilliant winner against Man U to stay up no?
So if he was illegally fielded, I'm with Sheffield Utd. Though I do see where arguments come from that its the authorities who should cough up rather than West Ham.
Complain about this comment
sadbloke,
The Daily Mail put an abbreviated and then a fuller version of the judgement on there website and then took it down.
Presumably it was leaked to them, I wonder who?
They presumably they had to take it down as it broke the confidentually agreememt of the arbitration panel.
It has been on West Ham and Sheffield fan websites aswell.
If you hunt around you might find it though, it must be said it may only be a draft and not a final judgement.
I cant put any link up as the the fan sites that have had it up in the past or have it still may get into trouble.
Complain about this comment
bluebits.
Ashton missed the whole season because he was injured in training by Wright-Phillips whilst on England duty.
Tevez did score the winner at Old Trafford but West Ham only needed to draw to stay up, Rob Green the goalkeeper won MOM.
Tevez failed to score in 20 consecutive games he played in until he scored in the home defeat against Spurs.
Le Tissier brilliant player that he was couldn't have did what he did without his teamates.
Complain about this comment
Guanajuato is a good example of the double standards at work here. He says that the Kabba question is not the same because Kabba wasn't a good player. In other words, it's okay to break the rules of 3rd party ownership if a player is ultimately ineffectual, but not if he turns out to have an effect.
What about Man U not allowing Tim Howard to play against them for Everton in the same season? A rookie goalie came in, dropped a clanger and Man U won. If they hadn't then Chelski would have won the league. If we're goint to be consistent about this, then the league title for the 06/07 season should be awarded to Chelsea.
Where does this end?....
Complain about this comment
Can somebody please explain why Sheffield United are bringing the compensation claim against WHU and not the body that made the original decision to fine West Ham?
By my reckoning they made the ruling before the end of the season after which West Ham abided by the decision and rules. Subsequently they won 4 of their last six games and stayed up.
All credit to West Ham and their management.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Becton
You see that is where I have a problem there are some on here (not you Becton) who post (on this forum and others) as if they are quoting directly from the report, manipulating what they believe the report has said to promote their view, happy in the knowledge that at this moment in time there is no way of disputing what they say as the final report is not readily available.
Now it may be the case that someone is sitting with the report in front of them and contributing to this and other forums, but I would question their motives. Like you I wonder who would feel they would benefit from the leaks to the media and selective quotes on forums like this.
Its interesting to note that the reason the case has been further delayed is to give the new lawyers employed by West Ham a chance to digest the report due to its size, yet some on here would like you to believe they have it all committed to memory.
Complain about this comment
Can any of the West Ham fans who claim Tevez was so irrelevant to their season explain why 83% (EIGHTY THREE PERCENT!!!!) of you voted him West Ham's player of the season?
Complain about this comment
Interestingly the 3rd party rules was added to the rulebook to prevent clubs from selling players with a clause that stopped them playing against their own club, a rule that seems to be regularly circumvented.
But the rule was put in place to stop clubs gaining an advantage.
West Ham broke the rule no disputing that but there was no advantage as the clause that broke the rules stated that Tevez could be sold at any time. The bulk of the fine that west ham got was for not submitting the paper work and thus misleading the PL not for the 3rd party influence.
Sheffield Utd did gain an advantage when they stopped Steve Kabba playing against them, but as the agreement was verbal no action was taken.
Tevez being worth 3 point or not as the case may be seems to me to be a nonsense.
The penalty given to West Ham was mild but that's not their fault.
Complain about this comment
'Funny how they only complained once Wigan had relegated them and they realised they might have some sort of case and/or excuse.'
A few teams (Sheff Utd, I think Wigan, possibly Bham if they were around that part of the Prem that season) said that they would complain and support each other if one of them went down (unless complaining meant that they would go down themselves, in which case they would stay neutral). And besides, how could they sue for lost earnings as a result of going down BEFORE they had been relegated!? In my view they should have taken away all goals scored by Tevez and adjusted the results accordingly. I don't know how many he scored or how crucial they would be in this situation but it would be more of a 'relevant' punishment. And no one would really be able to complain.
Complain about this comment
"Can any of the West Ham fans who claim Tevez was so irrelevant to their season explain why 83% (EIGHTY THREE PERCENT!!!!) of you voted him West Ham's player of the season? "
What on earth has that got to do with it?
Take a look back at our previous HOTY and you will see it's not always the best player that wins it. Occasionally, the player who catches the imagination does.
By the way, if Tevez was the reason we won at Man U (irrespective of his goal) why was Robert Green voted Man of the Match by one of Sheffield Uniteds "witnesses"?
Complain about this comment
Re: #195
It is not true that 83% of West Ham fans voted Carlos Tevez as Player of the Year: I don't know if the percentage figure is correct (i've no reason to think it isn't) but this percentage would relate to the number of fans WHO VOTED, which would be a tiny proportion of the total number of West Ham fans (I've been a West Ham season ticket holder for twenty years and I have NEVER voted).
Also, to be slightly pedantic, the award is actually HAMMER of the year, and could just as easily (and often is) given for a player putting in a lot of effort, etc. rather than being particularly influential.
The point I would make is this: a West Ham team without Carlos Tevez finished ninth the season before and tenth the season after; a Carlos Tevez inspired one finished fifteenth. If, as certain "experts" are claiming, Carlos Tevez made such a difference, can one of them explain what it was that caused a team to effectively drop ten places in the league for one season and was miraculously reversed the following season? All suggestions welcome...
Complain about this comment
"You can't really use "we did ok last season, so we would have been ok this season" as an arguement. It is impossible to say how West Ham would have got on without Tevez."
Agreed - it is impossible to judge one way or the other. So, no judge, court or arbitration panel should even try!
But the blades have opened up Pandora's box with their ludicrous (and hypocritical) pursuit of money (oops, justice?).
Complain about this comment
Red_Blogger:
"Did the FA show fair play to Sheffield United, who had played by the rules by only giving the hammers a fine when a points deduction was obviously called for?"
Hahahhhahahhahhhahh.......
The blades played by the rules did they? Not according to their own website, Watfords website and their own manager at the time. Hypocrisy in the extreme....
Complain about this comment
sheffield united would've stayed up had they beaten wigan at home.
they didn't, and deserved to go down on that basis alone.
simple as.
Complain about this comment
"Double Jeopardy" is a wholly inappropriate term here. It used to be (it no longer is) a principle that said where a defendant was found not guilty of an offence he could not be re-tried for the same offence. Here West Ham were found to have breached one or more rules and were fined (but the FA decided not to deduct points) and then SU have sought to invoke an arbitration procedure to claim damages from WHU.
The Pettigrew comparison is inapt - the Olympic gold medal was not based on 38 races over the period of a year during which different competitors competed for the US and for the other teams against which they were competing and there was no impact on such preceding races in deciding how the competing teams should apply tactics in the races as they proceeded.
If the arbitration ruling is appealed and heard by a sensible judge then WHU will not have to pay any damages to SU for the following reasons:-
1. It is a matter for the Premier League to decide how to punish breaches of its rules and it made its decision to make a fine against WHU. That decision has not been successfully appealed. If the Premier League got it wrong then SU could try suing the Premier League but not WHU.
2. The Premier League rules are set up to regulate how the members conduct themselves and not to provide a regime for claims between clubs. Where there is procedure for which all clubs sign up to punich breaches or the rules then there is no reason to need another damages-based regime to ensure compliance with the rules.
3. WHU did not breach any duty of care to SU and owed them no duty under any contract. This is a completely different situation to an ordinary civil claim for damages - WHU did not cause personal injuries to any of SU's players or fail to comply with any contract with SU for the sale of a player. Does anyone, for instance, believe that it would be sensible or reasonable for the England players and manager to have sued Argentina or Diego Maradona for lost prize money, advertising revenue and salary increases that would have followed if the hand of God goal had not been awarded?
4. It is impossible to conclude that because Tevez played for WHU they acquired more points than they would have done if he had not played for them. There is a chance that might have been so but it is absolutely impossible to know his appearances produced more points for them. Unlike a simple sprint race there are an infinite number of factors that contribute to the season-end position of a team in the Premier League.
5. Even if there was a right for any Premier League teams to pursue a claim for damages against WHU for their breach of Premier League rules then there is no valid basis for concluding that the fairest way to remedy the breach is to assess the loss on the basis that there should have been a deduction of points from WHU but not from anyone else - the impact of playing WHU was not the same for the other teams in the league. A fairer approach would be to treat all WHU games as void and recalculate the points for everyone during that season on the basis that no points were awarded for any game played against WHU. I have not done the maths but that may mean that SU would still have gone down and may well have resulted in the positions for all teams in the league being different and a series of financial adjustments would have ben required (some being almost impossible to calculate - for instance a team may have qualified for European football in a recalculated league but who knows how far they would have gone in such tournament). Clearly this approach though fairer would be impossible to put into practice and you can see why a fine made more sense.
Complain about this comment
Here is a little conundrum for all those who think that Tevez "was always legally registered"
After the independent commission hearing it was announced that if West Ham did not remove the contentious clause, the Tevez registration would be terminated.
He was of course playing under the same contract as he had been prior to the hearing.
How on earth could his registration be terminated?
Why did West Ham not challenge this?
Complain about this comment
all the people going on about tim howards transfer from man u to everton, i thought the transfer was agreed but not concluded til the end of the season so he remained on loan at everton, meaning he wasn't allowed to play against man u. i'm not sure if thats right but i seem to remember something about it at the time.
Complain about this comment
Sheffield United Football Club, in my mind were no doubt are reacting to a second time relegation which almost mirrored the previous. The high drama of losing a home advantage game they must win but lost left a very sour taste in their mouths and yet it is somehow attributed to tevez playing for Westham AND It only became an issue when relegation was confirmed. Tell me, Is Tevez responsible for SUFC losing a 10 point safety net clear of relegation that they had in January of that season. Let's not forget Tevez was in the West Ham team that SUFC beat three nil at bramall lane. That day there was smiles all round and high fives from those assembled. West Ham were a shambles (and yes, with Tevez on the pitch). There was no mention of an unfair advantage that day? So, SUFC lose 10 points while others around them gain. Time to sue? Not yet. West Ham beat Man United twice last season. Home (with no Tevez on the pitch, Sheringham gave off the bench over Tevez) and away with Tevez on the pitch. Tevez did not take to the pitch for most of the time he was a West Ham player and when he did he couldn't find the net for his first 9 games? Was there talk of an unfair advantage then 'or' the probability of taking West Ham to court by SUFC? Certainly not. So, West Ham sack Pardew. They hire Curbishley and buy Lucas Neil and a couple of other players to bolster the defence who stop conceding goals. The 'team' hit form and Tevez and Zamora strike up a partnership - Teddy Sheringham was selected more times over Tevez. West Ham survive. Last day Scenario. West Ham survive SUFC go down and start screaming West Ham are cheats. So Tevez was responsible for you losing all those games? or for West Ham winning theirs (forgive me for asking but I just want to know where SUFC think West Ham gained a unfair advantage). West Ham broke the rules? Yes they did, previous regime handed the new owners a poison chalice. A matter for the EPL V West Ham (not SUFC). A five million pound fine no points deducted. If I'm not mistaken all premiership sides sign up to agreement the action the EPL will take. Once relegated SUFC are not happy and try to bring West Ham through every court in the land and fail at each attempt. Should SUFC not being taking the EPL to court for not applying in hindsight of their relegation they should have deducted West Ham points? If you sling mud long enough some of it has to stick. SUFC are a disgrace. They have brought the sport into disrepute. I hope West Ham counter sue for defamation of character eventually. It would The panel needs it's head examined for it's done and the pandora box it's opened. As someone said it's a culture in breeding claim and counter claim on sporting matters to make money. It does not bode well for the future of the game. It would be nice to see SUFC lose out in the long run with costs against them - now there's justice. Kia Joorabchin still owns Tevez commercial rights? The very rule West Ham broke and were fined for. The EPL have allowed it that he is 'on loan' from West Ham to Man United. So something is not right. Ultimately West Ham may end up suing the EPL any moneies lost in this sham of a situation they find themselves in.
Complain about this comment
Just one simple question.
Did West Ham, in going to this Arbitration Panel, agree to abide by it's decision, knowing there was no right of appeal ?
If they did,which I suspect to be the case,then hard cheddar mate !
Complain about this comment
It is getting both ridiculous and dangerous, this situation. Do WHUFC now have to sue the FA for Dean Ashton's injury that kept him out all of that season? If Ashton had been fit would Tevez had played at all. Initially Tevez did not make an impact and Mascherano was soon dropped as there was plenty of midfielders. Would Tevez also have been dropped if Ashton had been fit? At the end of the season WHU stayed up because Sheffield Utd didn't have players good enough. If it hadn't been Tevez it would have been someone else. It wasn't Tevez that lost SU's last game against Wigan, it was their own players.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If Tevez hadn't played in those last few games, would West Ham have stayed up?
No, so therefore West Ham should compensate Sheffield United!
Complain about this comment
There's a much stronger case for arguing that West Ham wouldn't have been in the relegation battle in the first place if Tevez and Mascherano hadn't been foisted upon them.
Before their arrival, West Ham had scored four points from three games.
In the six games after their arrival, West Ham scored only one point.
Tevez played sixteen league games before scoring. In those sixteen games, West Ham recorded two wins, two draws and 12 defeats and during that period, also lost to League One (now League Two) Chesterfield, oh, and had their manager sacked.
Don't get me wrong Tevez was a good player and a hard worker and he came good in the last few games but his contribution over the season was more negative than positive.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"If Tevez hadn't played in those last few games, would West Ham have stayed up?
No, so therefore West Ham should compensate Sheffield United!"
Why? Tevez had the PLs permission to play in the last few games or do Sheffield Utd have the final say on who is and who isn't allowed to play in the premiership
Complain about this comment
"If Tevez hadn't played in those last few games, would West Ham have stayed up?
No, so therefore West Ham should compensate Sheffield United!"
You know that how?
Time machine?
Crystal ball?
Inter-dimensional portal?
Complain about this comment
"Just one simple question.
Did West Ham, in going to this Arbitration Panel, agree to abide by it's decision, knowing there was no right of appeal ?
If they did,which I suspect to be the case,then hard cheddar mate !"
West Ham had no choice but to go to the arbitration hearing.
They were not asked if they wanted to attend, they were told they HAD to attend as the rules state that once a club (in this case Sheffield United) instigates arbitration against another club (West Ham) they MUST accept.
Complain about this comment
Mihir a better blog this time than the last one on Arsenal's finances.
I am a gooner so not pro the Hammers or the Blades.
There problem is that the sporting body itself is in error to allow such arbitration to a panel of judges and not put forward before a jury of peers.
It is arguable true that West ham are suffering double jeopardy.
The sporting body has punished them and therefore no more should be said.
However, Sheffield have suffered financial loss but who's fault is that?
It could be argued that Sheffield United have a case against the Sport's ruling body rather than against West Ham. The decision by the FA to fine WHUFC rather than deduct points was the reason WHU stayed up and thus condemned SUFC to relegation. So if com[pensation is due it should come from those that failed to act properly but who also gained financially by fining West Ham.
So where to next. Do WHUFC take out a case against sheffield for malicious vendetta and costing time and money? When, it could be argued that, Sheffield United should have been suing the FA?
Indeed, it could be argued that to avoid trying to sue the FA, Sheffield is using FA rules to by pass natural justice.
This whole sorry affair is a result of a Sheffield's failure to survive due to endeavours on the pitch.
The constant recourse to the various courts for financial compensation based on how much a club suffers sets a unwarranted precedence.
Do clubs than start suing officials who make gross errors and cost the clubs points and hence places?
Someone has correctly pointed out than how is it that Man U had Tevez last season whilst only made a move to secure in full the 'ownership/registration' of the player
at the beginning of this season.
Does that make chelsea the true champions last season?
How about the failure of the FA to deduct points from Chelsea for its poaching attempt
from Leeds sit with the the teams below?
Judgements on Sporting endeavours should be avoided where possible.
The law courts should be sought where the law of the land was clearly broken e.g. a player should be able to sue another where a wilful assault ended another players career.
Complain about this comment
It is simple, West Ham should have been docked points, because they were not and it seems that Tevez went on playing even though he should not have, then the premier league are at fault so they should share the blame on any fine handed out to West Ham.
I feel sorry for Sheffield they were dealt a bad hand, now they must get some compensation for this decision.
One player can make a difference, I am not sure United would be Champions now if it was not for the inclusion of Ronaldo in there team. (Food for Thought)
I do hope this gets sorted out quickly
Complain about this comment
I see it is reported in the press that Bolton are watching the case with interest as if Sheff U are successful they may also sue West Ham as Tevez scored 2 in their 3-1 defeat and that ment they finished 2 points behind Everton.
I guess if you support Sheff U’s case you must support every other teams right to sue West Ham (Unless you are naïve/baised enough to believe your club was the only one affected).
As a West Ham supporter I say the more the merrier, the more clubs/players that try to sue the more chance there is of this seen as the farce it is. But if you are a suppoerter of Sheff U’s case and you truly believe litigation is the way forward I would ask, where do you stop ? Should you be suing Liverpool for playing a below strength side against Fulham, should Chelsea be suing you for the same offence against ManU
Sheffeild United signed up to the P.L. rules and regulations and agreed to accept the fines and punishments applied by the organisation they joined, now just because they don’t like the outcome applied by that authority they want to go after their of there fellow members.
Complain about this comment
The Hammers retained premier status through shear grit. Sheffield United on the other hand were limp wristed. They were relegated through lack of class and commitment and are bad losers, who should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute.
League positions should be decided on the pitch and not in the courts, which is a further more reason for sanctioning the Blades.
Complain about this comment
Surely the answer has to be that if the rules of the sport or the competition are broken the punishment must relate directly to the sport or the competition. This may mean disqualification, deduction of points, playing behind closed doors etc.
It has been shown that a £5m fine was a bargain for West Ham in comparison with the consequences of a points deduction.
Complain about this comment
gtovacs writes
It has been shown that a ?5m fine was a bargain for West Ham in comparison with the consequences of a points deduction
====================
At the time of this record fine it should be noted that West Ham in the eyes of the footballing world were almost certainly relegated already and any points deduction would have been seen as a let off.
It is only with hindsight that the original punishment handed out by those responsible for the rules of the sport/competition looks lenient which may well be the case but this is hardly West Hams fault.
Complain about this comment
Why is it that every post which mentions the findings of the tribunal that West Ham secretly honoured the offending Tevez contract despite assurances to the Premier League to the contrary seems to be deleted?
These findings were published on a national newspaper website (ie no confidentiality laws are being infringed) and are absolutely key to this entire debate!
Perhaps this one will stay up?
Complain about this comment
"The Hammers retained premier status through sheer grit"
--------------------------------------------------
That, plus the illegal presence of an international superstar in their line up.
Complain about this comment
It does seem sad that plexico thinks that the reason West Ham United was not docked points was beacause they are a southern, London, club. The north south does indeed exist but it seems to thrive only in the north. People in the south dont really care. Good luck to Sheffield United, I hope you gain promotion. I'm sure you will get a special welcome at the Boleyn ground.
As for Mr Bohse comparing the sorry affair to drugged athletes, Carlos Tevez's performances were not enhanced by the use of drugs, but by his whole hearted efforts for the team. I think a better analogy should be sought. It may be that in view of the gravity of the comparison Mr.Tevez might be able to take you to a tribunal or even sue you for deformation of his character and reputation. IT MIGHT COST YOU £30,000,000!
Complain about this comment
I think you'll find that publishing the judgement was a breach of the confidentiality agreement before the arbitration started.
It was no surprise it was published on the website of the newspaper it was (if that makes sense...) and I would say it was pretty obvious who gave them the document in the first place (though I can't say it out loud....just in case it's libel)
Complain about this comment
johnlyall, I don't think Mr Bohse accuses Mr Tevez of using performance enhancing drugs.
Rather, he compares the illegal presence of Tevez in the West Ham team to the illegal presence of performance enhancing drugs in an athlete's bloodstream.
I thought it was a pretty good analogy to be honest.
Complain about this comment
Sometimes, it's like banging your head against a brick wall......
"• 223. At 11:04am on 03 Oct 2008, BobBookah wrote:
"The Hammers retained premier status through sheer grit"
--------------------------------------------------
That, plus the illegal presence of an international superstar in their line up."
I'll say it loudly, so you can hear....
TEVEZ WAS NEVER ILLEGAL.
HE WAS FULLY REGISTERED TO PLAY.
IT WAS THE SIDE CONTRACT THAT ALLOWED THE OWNERS TO REMOVE TEVEZ FROM THE TEAM AT SHORT NOTICE FOR A NOMINAL FEE THAT WAS THE PROBLEM
I think that covers it
Complain about this comment
"That, plus the illegal presence of an international superstar in their line up."
once again at no point during the season was Tevez's presence Illegal
Complain about this comment
BobBookah
I think you will find that the findings of the tribunal are not public yet, this is why the DRAFT copies which were leaked ( I wonder who by?) on websites have been pulled.
As for secretly honouring the contract, what they reportedly did was to offer some verbal assurances in the same way as many other clubs have used “gentleman’s agreements” which the Premier League can do nothing about and were not contrary to Premier League rules
Complain about this comment
"You know that how?
Time machine?
Crystal ball?
Inter-dimensional portal?"
Err.. simple facts, my one-eyed Hammers friend. I don't support Sheffield United, but anyone can see the HUGE influence he had during the closing stages of that season.
Please don't make me dig up the actual stats for you, but he was a pivotal member of the team during that period, and you can't deny that if he wasn't playing, you would have been relegated!
Complain about this comment
Just to make it clear, I am not a fan of either team and have no bias.
I read about the first 50 comments and then got a bit bored, so this may have been subsequently covered, but the fact is, if west ham fielded an illegible player in games, no pioints should've been awarded for those games, especially after it was supposedly sorted out.
If that had happened, then they would've been relegated and Sheffield United woul've been the team who would've stayed up. ther fore, as they were made to be relegated, they are due loss of income based on the difference between their projected earning had they stayed up and what they actually earnt they following seasion in the Championship.
this is not about if tevez kept them up or not, the inelligable player could've been a rather average left back or central midfielder, the point is that the player was inelligable.
In a civil court you can sue for damages and court costs after the law of the land has been applied and someone is sent to jail.
Football is not above the law, and no Bolton would not be able to sue a ref who awarded a dodgy penalty, because sadly, awarding a dodgy penalty because it looked like on at the time is within the laws of the game, fielding inelligable players is not within the laws.
please find a bit of clarity.
Complain about this comment
"Err.. simple facts, my one-eyed Hammers friend. I don't support Sheffield United, but anyone can see the HUGE influence he had during the closing stages of that season.
Please don't make me dig up the actual stats for you, but he was a pivotal member of the team during that period, and you can't deny that if he wasn't playing, you would have been relegated!"
So the 5 clean sheets in the last 9 games were Tevez too?
Did you see any of the games?
I suppose Noble, Neill, Green, Collins, McCartney, Ferdinand and Zamora were just casual observers.....
Complain about this comment
~231
See my post at 227.
Tevez wasn't inelligible.
The letter from Scudamore to all PL Clubs in May says:
""Tevez has been properly registered to play for West Ham United since August 31 2006. The Board, under our Rules, is charged with the authority to determine this. He continues to be registered with West Ham United."
He also said:
"This is a case without precedent and certainly cannot be compared with clubs who have played unregistered players or players ineligible through suspension."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So Tevev'z contract was perfectly legal, but there was a little side annexe to it which was against Premier League rules, is that fair enough?
And do we agree finally that West Ham gave verbal assurances to the Premier League that this offending 'annexe' had been ripped up in order to have Tevez playing in the final 3 matches?
And it seems we also agree that the tribunal found that those assurances were not kept, thus making Tevez's presence in the West Ham team in those final 3 games a breach of Premier League rules?
Seems that we're finally starting to get along.
You can dress it up any which way you choose chaps, but those straws you keep clutching at are getting shorter and shorter.
What will be interesting is if Scudamore carries out his promise to investigate further if any more evidence came to light. I'd like to think he will but who knows.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So Tevev'z contract was perfectly legal, but there was a little side annexe to it which was against Premier League rules, is that fair enough? - Yes
And do we agree finally that West Ham gave verbal assurances to the Premier League that this offending 'annexe' had been ripped up in order to have Tevez playing in the final 3 matches? - Yes
And it seems we also agree that the tribunal found that those assurances were not kept, thus making Tevez's presence in the West Ham team in those final 3 games a breach of Premier League rules? – No. The tribunal were told that there may have been a “gentlemens agreement” to continue with the previous side contract without it being on paper, but that hasn’t been proven.
Seems that we're finally starting to get along. – That’s nice, though you haven’t seen my response above yet
You can dress it up any which way you choose chaps, but those straws you keep clutching at are getting shorter and shorter. – Hey, if Sheffield United can clutch straws until one of them proves golden, why can’t we?
What will be interesting is if Scudamore carries out his promise to investigate further if any more evidence came to light. I'd like to think he will but who knows. – There isn’t any evidence, only hearsay. When it is proved in writing (the actual signed contract that says they will honour the previous agreement) then there is nothing anyone can do.
Complain about this comment
I don't believe the Pettigrew analogy to be correct.
Instead I liken this situation to the current situation in Philadelphia between the DA and Bill Barnes who went to prison in 1966 for shooting police officer Walter Barclay.
Barclay died last year of a UTI and the D.A is now charging Barnes with his Murder.
In both cases it is impossible to prove that the original crime had any direct bearing on the final outcome and both cases have the potential to utterly shatter the system.
I fear for what the Tevez ruling will do to football if it goes in Sheff Utd favour. I truly believe this case has the power to break English Football with SU and now Bolton being the architects of it's destruction.
Complain about this comment
"I truly believe this case has the power to break English football with SU and now Bolton being the architects of it's destruction"
Nothing like a good old overreaction!
Bosman was supposed to shatter the system too, it didn't happen then and it won't happen now. This is a unique case brought about by the inadequacy of the original PL enquiry and the dishonesty of West Ham.
Everyone knows that West Ham will not receive a fee for Tevez as they never owned him, MSI did (and still do to my knowledge).
Those with good memories will remember that one of the clauses in the original hearing was that West Ham must receive the majority of any transfer fee from Man Utd as and when they eventually buy him. Bet your house that this will not happen.
This will prove that he was always under the influence of MSI, and never, at one moment, under the total control of West Ham.
If this does ruin football, the blame in my eyes will lie with the PL and the then board of West Ham United.
Complain about this comment
The season before Carlos Tevez arrived at West Ham, the club finished ninth and almost won the FA Cup.
After three matches of the 2006/07 season, West Ham had four points and were in 4th place in the fledgling table. Carlos Tevez arrived at the end of August between West Ham's third and fourth games. After this, the club did not win again until the end of October, following a run of nine matches, eight defeats and one draw, during which time, they slipped down to 18th place.
From the end of October until December 9th, West Ham played eight, won three and lost five, after which Alan Pardew was sacked. Over the following 14 matches - up to and including the home game v Spurs - we won two and lost nine, falling down to bottom of the table and were, at that time, ten points adrift of safety. This was Carlos Tevez's "season that saved the Hammers" so far.
After this, West Ham won seven out of the last nine games and pulled clear of relegation, finally finishing 15th.
During this last period, Tevez scored six times, but only four of those goals - 2 v Bolton, one v Blackburn and one v ManU - could be said to have "won" the game.
It infuriates me when people argue that this player - great player that he undoubtedly is and certainly not at fault for the controversy around him - singlehandedly saved West Ham.
His arrival, and certainly the circumstances around it, clearly contributed to a disastrous run of form, clearly disrupted the organisation/strategy/tactics of the team and manager and led to a situation that ended in the desperately unfair dismissal of the manager who had, it seemed, had nothing to do with the decision to bring Tevez to the club or the controversial circumstances in which this took place.
Tevez's contribution to that season, if it is to mean anything at all, must be analysed in terms of the whole period from his arrival. And not just those four goals that materially altered the results of those three games.
Also, any analysis of Tevez's effect on West Ham must not ignore the fact that, the season before he arrived, we finished ninth and almost won the FA Cup and the season after he left we finished tenth, while this season, so far, we currently sitting in fifth position.
It's even more infuriating when another team entirely, Sheffield United, who were relegated entirely through their own failures on the pitch, seek to deflect the real blame for their relegation onto the controversial circumstances of Tevez's registration to play for West Ham. And then, after roundly condemning this particular business arrangement, they then seek to benefit from it financially.
It is frankly unbelievable to me that this "claim" of theirs was even entertained seriously by the relevant authorities and I was totally amazed by last week's verdict.
My hope is that wiser counsels can prevail and that it will be seen clearly that 1. West Ham gained NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER from Carlos Tevez's time at the club and that 2.Sheffield United were relegated ENTIRELY through their own failures on the pitch and for no other reason.
Complain about this comment
Everyone knows that West Ham will not receive a fee for Tevez as they never owned him, MSI did (and still do to my knowledge).
Those with good memories will remember that one of the clauses in the original hearing was that West Ham must receive the majority of any transfer fee from Man Utd as and when they eventually buy him. Bet your house that this will not happen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
More twisted information to support your case, Tevez was not and still has not been the subject of a transfer since his days in Brasil, both the West Ham and Man U deals were loan deals, MSI have retained ownership of tevez all along. The fee that the PL requested was for the transfer of his registration for which West Ham were paid £2m which was the majority (100% in fact). If this had not been the case the PL would not have sanctioned the deal and Tevez would not be playing for Man U now !
Complain about this comment
["I truly believe this case has the power to break English football with SU and now Bolton being the architects of it's destruction"
Nothing like a good old overreaction! ]
We'll see when the next team to suffer relgation due to a another teams actions sues....
[Bosman was supposed to shatter the system too, it didn't happen then and it won't happen now. This is a unique case brought about by the inadequacy of the original PL enquiry and the dishonesty of West Ham. ]
Completely different scenario
[Everyone knows that West Ham will not receive a fee for Tevez as they never owned him, MSI did (and still do to my knowledge). ]
MSI do still own him. West Ham DID receive a fee, about £2m, for his REGISTRATION which West Ham DID own.
[Those with good memories will remember that one of the clauses in the original hearing was that West Ham must receive the majority of any transfer fee from Man Utd as and when they eventually buy him. Bet your house that this will not happen.]
Quite right, it won't because West Ham never owned him, MSI did. Still do in fcat.
[This will prove that he was always under the influence of MSI, and never, at one moment, under the total control of West Ham.]
He was registered to West Ham but owned by MSI. He is still owned by MSI and Man Utd own his registration. If Man Utd do not buy him at the end of his current loan deal (from MSI, not West Ham), he will be moved on. If Man Utd do buy him, they will buy him from MSI, not West Ham
[If this does ruin football, the blame in my eyes will lie with the PL and the then board of West Ham United. ]
Maybe, but you will also have to blame Sheffield United for their continuos disregard for the rules of the PL and continual hearings to gain money from a situation that was already dealt with.
Complain about this comment
And after todays revelations about the state of football finances (premier league clubs could go bust) maybe West Ham ought to sue the PL for not deducting them points, sending them down and therefore been forced to tighten their belt earlier. Football - crazy world indeed.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS