posted May 17, 2007

Oh dear, whining Whelan is at it again....Is he senile?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 17, 2007

He's got a point, the Premiership brand is being dragged through the Mud @ the moment through their decisions. & it's the blokes @ the top who are responsible for this, hence he has a valid point.....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 17, 2007

So what do we reckon - will Whelan stick to this arrangement?

http://www.sportinglife.com/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/07/05/17/SOCCER_Tevez_Nightlead.html

or will he continue to act like an irrational teenager who continues to argue with mum even when he knows she's right really?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 17, 2007

The Premiership should be fined £50M for bringing the game into disrepute through their biased and unfair decision re. West Ham.

The money should be given to Southend United as a parachute payment. Surely everyone would agree that's a perfectly fair and just solution.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 18, 2007

I agree with chrisc_w.

West ham were up for relegation too and ultimately if the FA had docked points it would have automatically sent them down. The teams that get relegated should be decided on the pitch, not in the court room, otherwise, what's the point of playing? The dictionary discribes Football as a an outdoor game between two teams played with a ball on a pitch with goals at each end. I suppose you COULD do away with the turf altogether and bring in a couple of lawyers to sit on concrete in the stadium, it would be much more clear cut that way wouldn't it? In all honesty though, who would buy a season ticket to watch 90 min of guys sitting at a table, in suits passing a ball between them and arguing?

I also think there is a slight over reaction to the whole points thing. The way people are going on you would think that West Ham single handedly put sheffield and wigan in the relegation zone. I MIGHT be wrong, but I'm SURE that you have to play more than one game a season right? And you have to play against EVERY other team in the league, not just one?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 18, 2007

What a great deal of common sense shown by the comments of FallenScottishAngel. Makes you wonder if Mr Whelan is interested in football at all! Would he be on his high horse if his club had finished midway in Premiership? Very doubtful. It was twenty games before Tevez scored for WHU so it could be argued that he was a hindrance for most of his time with the club!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 21, 2007

Hindrance my arse. Let's be honest, Tevez was a massive help to West Ham.

The theory that lawyers should never be allowed to interfere because it should only ever be decided on the pitch, implies that points should never be deducted in any situation, and that the premiership committee itself should not even have the option of deducting points. That's a cheats charter, imo. It's based on the notion that there was only a minor technical infringement of the rules. The trouble is, the infringement caused one team to have an extra £30-odd worth of players.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 21, 2007

£30M even?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 21, 2007

sorry mysticshrimp thats not correct west ham only had to get rid off a clause in the contract.

there were just playing the players on the same aggrement as a loan.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 24, 2007

Points deduction is only an option not a mandatory punishment, like if you get 12 points on your licence, being disqualified is not always the outcome.
Whelan should have concentrated more on his teams performance towards the end of the season, rather then put his efforts into moaning about points deductions and maybe he would still be at sheffield and they might still be in the premiership!

add comment | complain about this comment