posted Jun 13, 2007

and another point, west ham were punished, right? why were they punished? because theyd done something wrong! oh right, so anybody saying he was a legible player, your wrong, so again, shhhh

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2007

Well said hammersstaying up. Exactly they aren't good enought to stay up simple.... Stop blaming the hammers for being sent down ,not our problem.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2007

JimmyBlade22

It was the Premier league who said he is not ineligible so there is no arguement over that. West Ham were NOT charged with fielding an ineligible player, that is not what rule 13 and 18 state, they relate to the 3rd party influence where Tevez could have been sold at any time (at the disadvantage to West Ham only)If you are charged with speeding in your car you cant also be charged with shoplifting. The whole of Sheff Utd from their chairman to Mr. Bean keep coming out with the same drivel time after time. The Independent commission had a range of penalties they could give. The same thing happens if you were caught speeding- Fines, disqualification etc. If you had played properly in your last game cock up where you best player played basketball you would have survived. Isn't he off soon?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2007

West Ham Fans are just a total embarassment, all you do is say we didn't do anything, both players were legible to play, then why were you fined u morons? Why would west ham only be docked two points they didn't just play a player ilegally they played two players ilegally for months, anyway the person who was involved as third party in the contract between the two argentines and west ham is giving evidence supporting the blades. Who do west ham really think they are they've never achieved anything and now they have stayed up by blatantly cheating, well done ur a bunch of nowbodys

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2007

Bit rich when the second best team in sheffield start name calling morons.

For those who still cant read properly West Ham were fined for allowing a 3rd party to be able to sell the players when they wanted to. How was this was to West Ham's advantage? Who is the third party who is giving evidence or is this another figment of your imagination. The same imagination that beleives the second rate hobbit is going to have any influence.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2007

In reply,
A quote from the Premier League letter
"It is important to bear in mind that although press comment assumes that the charge considered by the Commission was that of fielding ineligible players, this press assumption is incorrect. At no point were West Ham United charged with fielding ineligible players.”

Which indicates that the PL believe that Tevez was fully registered, and eligible to play. Later on the letter states:

“A Board Meeting was convened immediately after the conclusion of the Commission Hearing. The Board decided that in order for Mr Tevez to be eligible to play, West Ham United would be required to take immediate action either to modify the offending third party contract in a manner satisfactory to the Board or alternatively terminate outright”

This section indicates that Tevez was not in fact eligible to play as all the time there was an ‘offending third party contract’ in place.

It is crystal clear from these statements that the PL obviously at some point considered Tevez to be ineligible to play, he has represented West Ham on the field for most of the season, yet West Ham have not been charged with fielding ineligible players.

It simply doesn't make sense and they are clearly in trouble!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2007

To add to comments that West Ham would be docked only 2 points as other teams have met with this punishment.In these cases the teams were docked two points for playing an ineligible player for only one game .West Ham played these players for how many games?Easy to do the math!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2007

I have a soft spot for Sheffield United. I lived for a long time so close to the ground that I could hear the cheer when they scored. I would much prefer Sheffield United to have stayed up than West Ham but that isn't what happened. West Ham got more points and that was that. Sheffield United's opportunity to stay up was the requirement that they draw or win with Wigan at home in their last game of the season. They just weren't up to it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2007

As a neutral I have no desire to see either team relegated. What I desire now is that this panel makes a brave unflinching decision in conlusion that states catagoricaly if the proven crime committed by Westham should have been punished by a points deduction, or whether a 5mil fine was a suitable punishment.

My prediction for the outcome of this tribunal will be that Blades fans will be left feeling robbed of justice.
When someone gets the sack and then succeed in proving unfair dismissal at their tribunal, do they get their job back? No, they get compensation.
I fear that this is the best the blades can hope for.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 19, 2007

Shoramblade - your poor spelling and grammar aside can I again point out that all you had to do was draw at home and you couldn't. Nothing more will happen to West Ham, enjoy Watford away next season - you can pretend you're both still up if you want...

add comment | complain about this comment