posted Jul 17, 2009

No, a Blade.

Born one.

Living one.

Eventually to die as one.

I did watch your lot in the the late 80's as a stoodent.

Young master Dicks was always amusing until he went to a bigger club.

Nice football though.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 17, 2009

"Or was it because I unmasked Tyler as none other than Bore'EmBender!!!"

Unmasked

When in quite clearly says on my profile "I used to be ShorehamEnder"

Im in awe of your incredible powers of deduction

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 17, 2009

Well I'm not usually one to say I told you so but.......

Nebulous case, I doubt the FA even held a proper investigation. They just waited a respectable amount of time and issued the statement.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 17, 2009

Trev,

our point exactly.

The latest ruling suggests the FA and PL didn't want to find any nefarious deads.

Keep the money coming.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 18, 2009

Hammers have been the scapegoat, the whipping boy. They've come out smelling of roses, unlike all the other parties....Now let it be!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 18, 2009

Atomic - All goes back to the original tribunal by the PL matey, they allowed us to plead guilty and take a fine then tried to justify the punishment with a series of excuses around it being a different regime, not fair on the fans etc,etc why?

They thought we were down.

You thought we were down.

We NEVER gave up, so while your trading fizzy pop then always remember pal....

Keep the faith.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 19, 2009

In other words, the FA and Premier League have jointly concluded that Griffith's findings are wrong, and West Ham have been wrongly forced by Griffiths to pay substantial compensation to Sheff Utd.

Still to this day, West Ham have never been officially charged with fielding an unregistered or incorrectly registered player. And yet they are paying over £25m to Sheff Utd because Griffiths got it wrong and because the timing of his ruling would have put the club out of business had they fought it properly and waited for this new clearance from the FA and the PL.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 19, 2009

Well, what a surprise!

The Blunts are STILL claiming vindication, despite the fact that the joint FA/PL findings have shown up the Griffiths' verdict for the sham it really was!

The FA/PL findings have shown what everybody knows - SUFC were NOT after justice, they were after cold, hard cash.

How many of you seized on Griffiths' findings regarding the TPA as justification? All of you, yet now you claim it was not a factor in his decision?

Nonsense, and you all know it!

And just so you all know that Griffiths was totally wrong anyway, here's a post I replied to earlier:
------------------------------------------------------
"The reality is that your team were almost as 'inept' as we were - but you had an Argentinian International footballer helping you out who wouldn't have been there if your club had adhered to the rules that the rest of the league were following"

I have lost count of how many times I have demolished this assertion.

Tevez was demonstrably a HINDRANCE over the course of the season, hence we earned more points per game when he didn't play. Our other strikers had better goalscoring records as well.
------------------------------------------------------

Lord Fruitloop didn't even make an attempt at impartiality, and his judgement is now shown to be false. As the only games examined in detail by Griffiths were the final three, his "at least 3 points" argument goes up in smoke twice over, as it is based on the incorrect assumption that Tevez was ineligible.

The alleged "second rule break" following the OC was at the heart of SUFC's case to the Griffiths tribunal. As it is now clear that the liar was your Chairman, you should all be queueing up to slate him (if it was the other way around, I certainly would be). His vindictive actions came close to bankrupting another Club. I hope he spends the rest of his life fighting litigation from anyone with a tentative excuse to sue.

It's what he deserves, and whilst he remains the Chairman of SUFC, it's what your Club deserves as well...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 19, 2009

"... Lord Fruitloop didn't even make an attempt at impartiality..."

This is so true, and so abundantly evident in his report, but no-one else seems to pick up on it.

He starts of listing the last ten games (i.e. from when Tevez scored his FIRST EVER goal for West Ham) as the games under consideration, and later goes on to concentrate on the last three games, before pinning down his so-called "expert witnesses" (Henry Winter, Graham Taylor, and the last Match of the Day of the season) on Tevez's contribution to the goal that beat Man Utd. He then concludes that on the "totality" of the evidence, Tevez was worth at least three points.

Griffiths described Graeme Shear as an "unwilling witness", despite the fact that he was Joorabchian's bloke and bottled-out of the high court compo claim the previous summer. Then Griffiths accepted all he said regarding his chat in a nightclub as though it were some sort of sneaky verbal contract, despite the PL and FA's clear policy on the non-validity of "verbal agreements" (mainly because they can be broken as easily as WHU would have broken this agreement).

Griffiths also then based his entire judgemnet on the assumption that the PL would have invalidated Tevez's registration and elligibility had they known of Duxbury's promises to Graeme Shear, and applied a bonkers "Chitty on Chitty" (or whatever it was called) legal arguement to determine that West Ham were responsible for ALL of Sheff Utd's poor results for the entire season!

How could ever have been seen to be impartial?

And yet this new ruling from the FA and PL underlines that even with the benefit of all the evidence presented and discussed at Griffith's hearing, and all their subsequent months of investigation into the matter, there the Premier League still doesn't think it needed to invalidate Tevez's registration.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 24, 2009

its over then

add comment | complain about this comment