posted Jun 9, 2007

Looks like Sheff Utd have pull a quick one on the League. They're going to call MSI as a witness at the hearing. Stroke of genius.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 9, 2007

That's not fair. It's cheating!
Bet Scudamore tries to block it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2007

Interesting revelations in the News of the World on Sunday re Steve Kabba's transfer to Watford.

Apparently both Watford and SU websites at the time stated that he wasn't playing for Watford against SU due to a contractual agreement. This contravenes the same rule that West Ham breached - in relation to third party influence over the policies and performance of a football club.

Also interesting to note - if it's true, SU have actually been influenced by a third party. In West Ham's instance, the panel accepted that influence had not actually been exerted.

You could argue that SU's breach is worse than that of West Ham's.
(Although I'd concede that some of the misleading of the FAPL / withholding of information by WHU could counter that argument).

That said - we're yet to see whether this "contractual agreement" with Kabba was withheld from the FAPL too.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2007

Reggie, rule U18, as mentioned in the commission report says:
"No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches or in any (other) competitions."
It seems to say that only the team who can be influenced are guilty, not the ones who use the influence.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2007

West Ham got fined on two counts.

One for the 3rd party influence issue (rule U18 as you state).

The other count, refers to rule U13: "in all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith".

I think SU would fall foul of that one if the Kabba situation is (proved) true.

Either way, I think some of the moral high ground is conceded if SU have actively enabled another club to breach the same rule that they are complaining West Ham should have been more severely punished for.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2007

yep I wouldnt be surprised if Sheff U have done something untoward too. Lets face it given the recent report about agents etc, looks like it is not just West Ham who are involved with dodgy deals, but West Ham are the subject of McCabe's witch hunt.

What McCabe is doing is worse for football than West Ham ever did. He is now going to go the EC if his plan fails. Mr McCabe please grow up. Unlike that manager you had please accept the decision of the football authorities. What happens if West Ham are not happy with the decision? This could go on and on. Mr McCabe whatever West Ham did it was up to the PL to punish them, they did. There was never anything in the rules to say that Mr McCabe has to be happy with the decision and nothing that says oh yeah the right number of points need to be deducted to keep you up Mr McCabe. The crime was West Ham's and the judge was the PL. It is nothing to do with Sheffield Utd, if they were good enough they would have stayed up.

Are West Ham gonna take Portsmouth and Bolton to the EC about their "dodgy transfers" and Sheff about Kabbagate?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 20, 2007

Now, I'm a relative of McCabe and you will expect me to defend him.

Kevin McCabe is standing up for the smaller clubs since the FAPL made clear that the points deduction WOULD HAVE COME IF SHEFF UTD HAD BEEN INVOLVED.

Regards to Kabba, NO THIRD PARTIES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED.

Though the FA aren't certain about victory - they have offered SU the same fixtures as the Hammers next season in the PREMIER LEAGUE

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 20, 2007

"Kevin McCabe is standing up for the smaller clubs since the FAPL made clear that the points deduction WOULD HAVE COME IF SHEFF UTD HAD BEEN INVOLVED."
Paddy, no offence meant, but can you back that up?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 21, 2007

well you said it Paddy you're related to him! even more biased than me

"Kevin McCabe is standing up for the smaller clubs since the FAPL made clear that the points deduction WOULD HAVE COME IF SHEFF UTD HAD BEEN INVOLVED."

no i dont think that the PL would just decide just to deduct Shef Utd ! dont be ssooooo daft. Have no idea where you got that from.

no mr McCabe is not "Kevin McCabe is standing up for the smaller clubs", he is the Mr Kevin McCabe that saw his club relegated because they were not very good at football and he wants to grab any lifeline for his club so they can stay on the gravy train and keep as wealthy as possible.

You make him sound like some modern day Robin Hood. As I said there was NO obligation or rule that means points have to be deducted. It is Mr McCabe's propaganda that suggests points deducted has to happen. Why does it have to happen for Mr McCabe? because oh yeah it will conveniently keep them in the top flight !

The PL followed the rules and adopted an independent panel to give the appropriate penalty to West Ham. Any previous points deductions were for unregistered players being fielded. The West Ham players were not illegal or unregistered but there was a clause that was not correct (and the right of MSI to control and withdraw the players was wrong BUT it was not ever actioned by MSI so it is in effect a red herring). In the same way Kabba should have been allowed to play against Sheffield once he was transferred. Propagandists then say "well Tevez kept you up". That doesnt matter, if he was injured most of the season, the crime will still be the same, and so should the punishment.

Kabba. That is also a 3rd party involvement too.

So as I say PL followed the rules and adopted an independent panel to give the appropriate penalty to West Ham. There is nothing in the rules that say "oh well and once a decision is reached by this independent panel Mr Kevin McCabe has to be happy with it".

I suspect McCabe's unwillingness to accept this decision is now affecting both clubs. West Ham cannot buy the players they want (Darren Bent because he wont join a club threatened with this), and if Sheffield United WERE to be kept up I suspect by the time the decision is made, their chances of improving their squad (obviously not good enough for the PL anyway) will be lessened and I suspect they will be in the Championship this time next year anyway. And they must be having trouble preparing for the next season, and if they are to be in the Championship in August they are ruining their chance of going up this time next year by this spoilt preparation.

If West Ham are relegated through punishment maybe they will take Mr McCabe's attitude and contest these further through the courts etc etc and where are we going to be then? Will next season ever start? What about what Mr Allardyce, Mr Redknapp etc have been involved in? What about AC Milan - should they not be sued for winning the CL when they probably should not have been in the competition in the first place? Are refereering decisions to be taken to panels by clubs not happy with them?

Accept the decision of the authorities please. It makes me smile how Mr Warnock used to contest and moan and feel persecuted by referees most weeks (usually in defeat) and now this club continues its unwillingness to accept defeat on the pitch.

Hopefully the PL will now try to tighten the rules and clarify the punishments, but its too late for West Ham to be hit with them im afraid.

If we were to be relegated for this, Id hope my club will accept this decision and just get on with getting back into the PL as we surely would, as we are a far greater club than Sheffield United anyway.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 21, 2007

As a WHU fan, I hope that SU's case to the arbitration panel was as well constructed as Paddy Lowson's efforts above.

I presume you use a computer because your carers won't let you near anything as sharp as a pencil?

(and by the way - the Premier League also claim that the fixtures were a computer coincidence and no deal or communication had taken place with those setting the championship fixtures)

So in terms of the accuracy of the points you make, it's (an ironic) 0 out of 3.

Feel free to take me to embark on a ridiculous appeal process to adjust my scoring.

add comment | complain about this comment