posted Sep 9, 2008

....and then explain why that is West Ham's fault we didnt get deducted points.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 9, 2008

bran,

We have never said it was West Ham's fault that you didn't get deducted points.

We have said it was West ham's fault that they were able to get a couple of Argentine internationals despite breaking the rules.

We would love to sue the EPL. But the legal advisors told the club that their defence would by "It was West Ham's fault".

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 10, 2008

Pie in the sky matey.

Who knows you may be right maybe we were untruthful which allowed us to play Tevez in the run in, because he did nothing for us before the EPL told us we could play him.

TBH though, the way Im feeling about our board at the moment I really couldnt put it past them to have told porkies about it.

However, if you could prove that then, we will have more than a £5.5M fine coming to us and I imagine they wouldnt shy away from imposing such a punishment during a Transfer window. I could be wrong there but I just dont believe that the EPL wouldnt have started their own investigation and that they would not have made it public straight way.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 10, 2008

Bran,

It was detailed in the tribunal. There was a disagreement between your company secretary & Duxbury on the legality & it was not sent.

The question is, if it was as legal as Duxbury maintained, why didn't he send it?

On Tevez, wasn't it because Pardew didn't really give the Argentinians a decent run? I could be wrong on that. Perhaps he knew what might be coming. I don't know.

But regardless of that, you cannot dent that he was a major part of you staying up.

I know your goalie & defence were also instrumental but you cannot make up 10 points on purely defence.

We found that out when we lost Hulse, our main striker. The period you made up the 10 points was a period when our main goalscorer went down to a sickening injury & yours hit a rich vein of goalscoring form.

If he had been registered correctly, we would have had no complaints.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 11, 2008

ytt - well whatever the outcome, I do wish you lot the best for this season, I wanted Wigan to go down but what can you do.

Hopefully see you in the prem next year, what a couple of games that will be!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 23, 2008

Can't see what the problem is. Surely the transfer fee received from Manchester United can cover most of the cost of the compensation?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 23, 2008

Stratford

Shame on the FA for letting it happen and shame on anyone who thinks that West Ham rightfully retained their premier league status ahead of the Blades. I normally hate the legal system getting involved in football but good luck to Sheffield United on this one.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 23, 2008

The arbitration award is ridiculous. It puts the entire blame on West Ham. Not that Sheffield united couldn't play in 38 games or the contributions of 20+ other players in the West Ham squad.

The panel's made up of peanuts.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 23, 2008

"Can't see what the problem is. Surely the transfer fee received from Manchester United can cover most of the cost of the compensation?"

West Ham didn't get transfer fee because they didn't own him. He was - and still is - owned by a third party. That wasn't against the rules at the time.

What West Ham did wrong was allow a clause in the agreement between West Ham and MSI that Tevez could be transferred without permission of West Ham, i.e. whether West Ham liked it or not. That was deemed to be illegal and hence West Ham got fined, but the player was NEVER at any time deemed to be ilegible or unregistered.

Subsequently, West Ham refused to honour that dodgy clasue, hence when Kia J pimped Tevez to Utd, West Ham refused to release the registration and Kia J threatened to take West Ham to court, only to realise he was on shakey ground and instead coughed up £2m compo to release Tevez and from his four-year contract.

The rules have since been changed to prevent any third party ownerships in the Premier League, hence Man City were unable to have similar arrangement for Jo, and instead had to stump up the full fee.

Tevez, meanwhile, is happily on loan at Man Utd from MSI/JSI, despite the new rules. And the media continue to report that West Ham broke rules because Tevez was owned by third party, that they fielded an ineligble player, and all other manner of nonsense.

The new ruling is a mystery and it will be interesting to see what comes out of the West Ham board in the near future.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 23, 2008

comment by absolutetruth11 (U9708913)
posted 2 Weeks Ago

I like West Ham but I'd have to disagree.

Rules are rules and West Ham broke them. The precedent is points and it didn't happen because Brooking is in FA.

-------------------------

Dear oh dear....for this type of offence there had been NO kind precedent, that was part of the PROBLEM!!

Sheff Utd should be sueing the EPL, if I am honest then a points deduction probably should have happened, not WHU's fault it didn't, look no further than the EPL and Scudamore the muppet.

30 big ones, that's they can have their money after we have sued the EPL.

add comment | complain about this comment