Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html en-gb 30 Thu 21 Aug 2014 05:36:55 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html pcw1402 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=99#comment242 And after todays revelations about the state of football finances (premier league clubs could go bust) maybe West Ham ought to sue the PL for not deducting them points, sending them down and therefore been forced to tighten their belt earlier. Football - crazy world indeed. Wed 08 Oct 2008 16:08:48 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=99#comment241 ["I truly believe this case has the power to break English football with SU and now Bolton being the architects of it's destruction"Nothing like a good old overreaction! ]We'll see when the next team to suffer relgation due to a another teams actions sues....[Bosman was supposed to shatter the system too, it didn't happen then and it won't happen now. This is a unique case brought about by the inadequacy of the original PL enquiry and the dishonesty of West Ham. ]Completely different scenario[Everyone knows that West Ham will not receive a fee for Tevez as they never owned him, MSI did (and still do to my knowledge). ]MSI do still own him. West Ham DID receive a fee, about £2m, for his REGISTRATION which West Ham DID own.[Those with good memories will remember that one of the clauses in the original hearing was that West Ham must receive the majority of any transfer fee from Man Utd as and when they eventually buy him. Bet your house that this will not happen.]Quite right, it won't because West Ham never owned him, MSI did. Still do in fcat.[This will prove that he was always under the influence of MSI, and never, at one moment, under the total control of West Ham.]He was registered to West Ham but owned by MSI. He is still owned by MSI and Man Utd own his registration. If Man Utd do not buy him at the end of his current loan deal (from MSI, not West Ham), he will be moved on. If Man Utd do buy him, they will buy him from MSI, not West Ham[If this does ruin football, the blame in my eyes will lie with the PL and the then board of West Ham United. ]Maybe, but you will also have to blame Sheffield United for their continuos disregard for the rules of the PL and continual hearings to gain money from a situation that was already dealt with. Fri 03 Oct 2008 18:33:25 GMT+1 n1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=98#comment240 Everyone knows that West Ham will not receive a fee for Tevez as they never owned him, MSI did (and still do to my knowledge). Those with good memories will remember that one of the clauses in the original hearing was that West Ham must receive the majority of any transfer fee from Man Utd as and when they eventually buy him. Bet your house that this will not happen.-------------------------------------------------------------------------More twisted information to support your case, Tevez was not and still has not been the subject of a transfer since his days in Brasil, both the West Ham and Man U deals were loan deals, MSI have retained ownership of tevez all along. The fee that the PL requested was for the transfer of his registration for which West Ham were paid £2m which was the majority (100% in fact). If this had not been the case the PL would not have sanctioned the deal and Tevez would not be playing for Man U now ! Fri 03 Oct 2008 17:48:07 GMT+1 DagEIron http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=98#comment239 The season before Carlos Tevez arrived at West Ham, the club finished ninth and almost won the FA Cup.After three matches of the 2006/07 season, West Ham had four points and were in 4th place in the fledgling table. Carlos Tevez arrived at the end of August between West Ham's third and fourth games. After this, the club did not win again until the end of October, following a run of nine matches, eight defeats and one draw, during which time, they slipped down to 18th place. From the end of October until December 9th, West Ham played eight, won three and lost five, after which Alan Pardew was sacked. Over the following 14 matches - up to and including the home game v Spurs - we won two and lost nine, falling down to bottom of the table and were, at that time, ten points adrift of safety. This was Carlos Tevez's "season that saved the Hammers" so far.After this, West Ham won seven out of the last nine games and pulled clear of relegation, finally finishing 15th. During this last period, Tevez scored six times, but only four of those goals - 2 v Bolton, one v Blackburn and one v ManU - could be said to have "won" the game.It infuriates me when people argue that this player - great player that he undoubtedly is and certainly not at fault for the controversy around him - singlehandedly saved West Ham.His arrival, and certainly the circumstances around it, clearly contributed to a disastrous run of form, clearly disrupted the organisation/strategy/tactics of the team and manager and led to a situation that ended in the desperately unfair dismissal of the manager who had, it seemed, had nothing to do with the decision to bring Tevez to the club or the controversial circumstances in which this took place.Tevez's contribution to that season, if it is to mean anything at all, must be analysed in terms of the whole period from his arrival. And not just those four goals that materially altered the results of those three games.Also, any analysis of Tevez's effect on West Ham must not ignore the fact that, the season before he arrived, we finished ninth and almost won the FA Cup and the season after he left we finished tenth, while this season, so far, we currently sitting in fifth position.It's even more infuriating when another team entirely, Sheffield United, who were relegated entirely through their own failures on the pitch, seek to deflect the real blame for their relegation onto the controversial circumstances of Tevez's registration to play for West Ham. And then, after roundly condemning this particular business arrangement, they then seek to benefit from it financially. It is frankly unbelievable to me that this "claim" of theirs was even entertained seriously by the relevant authorities and I was totally amazed by last week's verdict. My hope is that wiser counsels can prevail and that it will be seen clearly that 1. West Ham gained NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER from Carlos Tevez's time at the club and that 2.Sheffield United were relegated ENTIRELY through their own failures on the pitch and for no other reason. Fri 03 Oct 2008 16:04:27 GMT+1 BobBookah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=97#comment238 "I truly believe this case has the power to break English football with SU and now Bolton being the architects of it's destruction"Nothing like a good old overreaction! Bosman was supposed to shatter the system too, it didn't happen then and it won't happen now. This is a unique case brought about by the inadequacy of the original PL enquiry and the dishonesty of West Ham. Everyone knows that West Ham will not receive a fee for Tevez as they never owned him, MSI did (and still do to my knowledge). Those with good memories will remember that one of the clauses in the original hearing was that West Ham must receive the majority of any transfer fee from Man Utd as and when they eventually buy him. Bet your house that this will not happen.This will prove that he was always under the influence of MSI, and never, at one moment, under the total control of West Ham.If this does ruin football, the blame in my eyes will lie with the PL and the then board of West Ham United. Fri 03 Oct 2008 15:47:54 GMT+1 TinmanX http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=97#comment237 I don't believe the Pettigrew analogy to be correct.Instead I liken this situation to the current situation in Philadelphia between the DA and Bill Barnes who went to prison in 1966 for shooting police officer Walter Barclay. Barclay died last year of a UTI and the D.A is now charging Barnes with his Murder.In both cases it is impossible to prove that the original crime had any direct bearing on the final outcome and both cases have the potential to utterly shatter the system.I fear for what the Tevez ruling will do to football if it goes in Sheff Utd favour. I truly believe this case has the power to break English Football with SU and now Bolton being the architects of it's destruction. Fri 03 Oct 2008 14:51:51 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=97#comment236 So Tevev'z contract was perfectly legal, but there was a little side annexe to it which was against Premier League rules, is that fair enough? - YesAnd do we agree finally that West Ham gave verbal assurances to the Premier League that this offending 'annexe' had been ripped up in order to have Tevez playing in the final 3 matches? - YesAnd it seems we also agree that the tribunal found that those assurances were not kept, thus making Tevez's presence in the West Ham team in those final 3 games a breach of Premier League rules? – No. The tribunal were told that there may have been a “gentlemens agreement” to continue with the previous side contract without it being on paper, but that hasn’t been proven. Seems that we're finally starting to get along. – That’s nice, though you haven’t seen my response above yetYou can dress it up any which way you choose chaps, but those straws you keep clutching at are getting shorter and shorter. – Hey, if Sheffield United can clutch straws until one of them proves golden, why can’t we?What will be interesting is if Scudamore carries out his promise to investigate further if any more evidence came to light. I'd like to think he will but who knows. – There isn’t any evidence, only hearsay. When it is proved in writing (the actual signed contract that says they will honour the previous agreement) then there is nothing anyone can do. Fri 03 Oct 2008 13:11:35 GMT+1 Sheffhomeoffootball http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=96#comment235 This post has been Removed Fri 03 Oct 2008 12:41:04 GMT+1 BobBookah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=96#comment234 So Tevev'z contract was perfectly legal, but there was a little side annexe to it which was against Premier League rules, is that fair enough?And do we agree finally that West Ham gave verbal assurances to the Premier League that this offending 'annexe' had been ripped up in order to have Tevez playing in the final 3 matches?And it seems we also agree that the tribunal found that those assurances were not kept, thus making Tevez's presence in the West Ham team in those final 3 games a breach of Premier League rules?Seems that we're finally starting to get along. You can dress it up any which way you choose chaps, but those straws you keep clutching at are getting shorter and shorter.What will be interesting is if Scudamore carries out his promise to investigate further if any more evidence came to light. I'd like to think he will but who knows. Fri 03 Oct 2008 12:34:51 GMT+1 Jayson Gabler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=95#comment233 This post has been Removed Fri 03 Oct 2008 11:36:32 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=95#comment232 ~231See my post at 227.Tevez wasn't inelligible.The letter from Scudamore to all PL Clubs in May says:""Tevez has been properly registered to play for West Ham United since August 31 2006. The Board, under our Rules, is charged with the authority to determine this. He continues to be registered with West Ham United."He also said:"This is a case without precedent and certainly cannot be compared with clubs who have played unregistered players or players ineligible through suspension." Fri 03 Oct 2008 11:19:41 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=95#comment231 "Err.. simple facts, my one-eyed Hammers friend. I don't support Sheffield United, but anyone can see the HUGE influence he had during the closing stages of that season.Please don't make me dig up the actual stats for you, but he was a pivotal member of the team during that period, and you can't deny that if he wasn't playing, you would have been relegated!"So the 5 clean sheets in the last 9 games were Tevez too?Did you see any of the games?I suppose Noble, Neill, Green, Collins, McCartney, Ferdinand and Zamora were just casual observers..... Fri 03 Oct 2008 11:14:21 GMT+1 TROLLYHEDGEBOY http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=94#comment230 Just to make it clear, I am not a fan of either team and have no bias.I read about the first 50 comments and then got a bit bored, so this may have been subsequently covered, but the fact is, if west ham fielded an illegible player in games, no pioints should've been awarded for those games, especially after it was supposedly sorted out.If that had happened, then they would've been relegated and Sheffield United woul've been the team who would've stayed up. ther fore, as they were made to be relegated, they are due loss of income based on the difference between their projected earning had they stayed up and what they actually earnt they following seasion in the Championship.this is not about if tevez kept them up or not, the inelligable player could've been a rather average left back or central midfielder, the point is that the player was inelligable.In a civil court you can sue for damages and court costs after the law of the land has been applied and someone is sent to jail. Football is not above the law, and no Bolton would not be able to sue a ref who awarded a dodgy penalty, because sadly, awarding a dodgy penalty because it looked like on at the time is within the laws of the game, fielding inelligable players is not within the laws.please find a bit of clarity. Fri 03 Oct 2008 11:05:57 GMT+1 Jayson Gabler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=94#comment229 "You know that how?Time machine?Crystal ball?Inter-dimensional portal?"Err.. simple facts, my one-eyed Hammers friend. I don't support Sheffield United, but anyone can see the HUGE influence he had during the closing stages of that season.Please don't make me dig up the actual stats for you, but he was a pivotal member of the team during that period, and you can't deny that if he wasn't playing, you would have been relegated! Fri 03 Oct 2008 11:02:22 GMT+1 n1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=93#comment228 BobBookahI think you will find that the findings of the tribunal are not public yet, this is why the DRAFT copies which were leaked ( I wonder who by?) on websites have been pulled.As for secretly honouring the contract, what they reportedly did was to offer some verbal assurances in the same way as many other clubs have used “gentleman’s agreements” which the Premier League can do nothing about and were not contrary to Premier League rules Fri 03 Oct 2008 10:45:14 GMT+1 dannylau http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=93#comment227 "That, plus the illegal presence of an international superstar in their line up."once again at no point during the season was Tevez's presence Illegal Fri 03 Oct 2008 10:31:39 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=93#comment226 Sometimes, it's like banging your head against a brick wall......"• 223. At 11:04am on 03 Oct 2008, BobBookah wrote: "The Hammers retained premier status through sheer grit"--------------------------------------------------That, plus the illegal presence of an international superstar in their line up."I'll say it loudly, so you can hear....TEVEZ WAS NEVER ILLEGAL.HE WAS FULLY REGISTERED TO PLAY.IT WAS THE SIDE CONTRACT THAT ALLOWED THE OWNERS TO REMOVE TEVEZ FROM THE TEAM AT SHORT NOTICE FOR A NOMINAL FEE THAT WAS THE PROBLEMI think that covers it Fri 03 Oct 2008 10:26:04 GMT+1 BobBookah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=92#comment225 johnlyall, I don't think Mr Bohse accuses Mr Tevez of using performance enhancing drugs.Rather, he compares the illegal presence of Tevez in the West Ham team to the illegal presence of performance enhancing drugs in an athlete's bloodstream. I thought it was a pretty good analogy to be honest. Fri 03 Oct 2008 10:25:25 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=92#comment224 I think you'll find that publishing the judgement was a breach of the confidentiality agreement before the arbitration started.It was no surprise it was published on the website of the newspaper it was (if that makes sense...) and I would say it was pretty obvious who gave them the document in the first place (though I can't say it out loud....just in case it's libel) Fri 03 Oct 2008 10:23:07 GMT+1 johnlyall http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=91#comment223 It does seem sad that plexico thinks that the reason West Ham United was not docked points was beacause they are a southern, London, club. The north south does indeed exist but it seems to thrive only in the north. People in the south dont really care. Good luck to Sheffield United, I hope you gain promotion. I'm sure you will get a special welcome at the Boleyn ground. As for Mr Bohse comparing the sorry affair to drugged athletes, Carlos Tevez's performances were not enhanced by the use of drugs, but by his whole hearted efforts for the team. I think a better analogy should be sought. It may be that in view of the gravity of the comparison Mr.Tevez might be able to take you to a tribunal or even sue you for deformation of his character and reputation. IT MIGHT COST YOU £30,000,000! Fri 03 Oct 2008 10:08:37 GMT+1 BobBookah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=91#comment222 "The Hammers retained premier status through sheer grit"--------------------------------------------------That, plus the illegal presence of an international superstar in their line up. Fri 03 Oct 2008 10:04:01 GMT+1 BobBookah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=90#comment221 Why is it that every post which mentions the findings of the tribunal that West Ham secretly honoured the offending Tevez contract despite assurances to the Premier League to the contrary seems to be deleted?These findings were published on a national newspaper website (ie no confidentiality laws are being infringed) and are absolutely key to this entire debate!Perhaps this one will stay up? Fri 03 Oct 2008 09:53:43 GMT+1 n1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=90#comment220 gtovacs writesIt has been shown that a ?5m fine was a bargain for West Ham in comparison with the consequences of a points deduction====================At the time of this record fine it should be noted that West Ham in the eyes of the footballing world were almost certainly relegated already and any points deduction would have been seen as a let off.It is only with hindsight that the original punishment handed out by those responsible for the rules of the sport/competition looks lenient which may well be the case but this is hardly West Hams fault. Fri 03 Oct 2008 09:37:06 GMT+1 gtkovacs http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=90#comment219 Surely the answer has to be that if the rules of the sport or the competition are broken the punishment must relate directly to the sport or the competition. This may mean disqualification, deduction of points, playing behind closed doors etc.It has been shown that a £5m fine was a bargain for West Ham in comparison with the consequences of a points deduction. Fri 03 Oct 2008 09:14:09 GMT+1 malcfactor http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=89#comment218 The Hammers retained premier status through shear grit. Sheffield United on the other hand were limp wristed. They were relegated through lack of class and commitment and are bad losers, who should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute.League positions should be decided on the pitch and not in the courts, which is a further more reason for sanctioning the Blades. Fri 03 Oct 2008 08:49:28 GMT+1 n1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=89#comment217 I see it is reported in the press that Bolton are watching the case with interest as if Sheff U are successful they may also sue West Ham as Tevez scored 2 in their 3-1 defeat and that ment they finished 2 points behind Everton.I guess if you support Sheff U’s case you must support every other teams right to sue West Ham (Unless you are naïve/baised enough to believe your club was the only one affected).As a West Ham supporter I say the more the merrier, the more clubs/players that try to sue the more chance there is of this seen as the farce it is. But if you are a suppoerter of Sheff U’s case and you truly believe litigation is the way forward I would ask, where do you stop ? Should you be suing Liverpool for playing a below strength side against Fulham, should Chelsea be suing you for the same offence against ManU Sheffeild United signed up to the P.L. rules and regulations and agreed to accept the fines and punishments applied by the organisation they joined, now just because they don’t like the outcome applied by that authority they want to go after their of there fellow members. Fri 03 Oct 2008 08:37:41 GMT+1 HalesVillian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=88#comment216 It is simple, West Ham should have been docked points, because they were not and it seems that Tevez went on playing even though he should not have, then the premier league are at fault so they should share the blame on any fine handed out to West Ham.I feel sorry for Sheffield they were dealt a bad hand, now they must get some compensation for this decision.One player can make a difference, I am not sure United would be Champions now if it was not for the inclusion of Ronaldo in there team. (Food for Thought)I do hope this gets sorted out quickly Fri 03 Oct 2008 08:11:21 GMT+1 Glorious71 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=88#comment215 Mihir a better blog this time than the last one on Arsenal's finances.I am a gooner so not pro the Hammers or the Blades.There problem is that the sporting body itself is in error to allow such arbitration to a panel of judges and not put forward before a jury of peers.It is arguable true that West ham are suffering double jeopardy. The sporting body has punished them and therefore no more should be said.However, Sheffield have suffered financial loss but who's fault is that?It could be argued that Sheffield United have a case against the Sport's ruling body rather than against West Ham. The decision by the FA to fine WHUFC rather than deduct points was the reason WHU stayed up and thus condemned SUFC to relegation. So if com[pensation is due it should come from those that failed to act properly but who also gained financially by fining West Ham.So where to next. Do WHUFC take out a case against sheffield for malicious vendetta and costing time and money? When, it could be argued that, Sheffield United should have been suing the FA?Indeed, it could be argued that to avoid trying to sue the FA, Sheffield is using FA rules to by pass natural justice. This whole sorry affair is a result of a Sheffield's failure to survive due to endeavours on the pitch. The constant recourse to the various courts for financial compensation based on how much a club suffers sets a unwarranted precedence.Do clubs than start suing officials who make gross errors and cost the clubs points and hence places?Someone has correctly pointed out than how is it that Man U had Tevez last season whilst only made a move to secure in full the 'ownership/registration' of the playerat the beginning of this season.Does that make chelsea the true champions last season?How about the failure of the FA to deduct points from Chelsea for its poaching attemptfrom Leeds sit with the the teams below?Judgements on Sporting endeavours should be avoided where possible.The law courts should be sought where the law of the land was clearly broken e.g. a player should be able to sue another where a wilful assault ended another players career. Fri 03 Oct 2008 07:50:44 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=88#comment214 "Just one simple question.Did West Ham, in going to this Arbitration Panel, agree to abide by it's decision, knowing there was no right of appeal ?If they did,which I suspect to be the case,then hard cheddar mate !"West Ham had no choice but to go to the arbitration hearing.They were not asked if they wanted to attend, they were told they HAD to attend as the rules state that once a club (in this case Sheffield United) instigates arbitration against another club (West Ham) they MUST accept. Fri 03 Oct 2008 07:38:47 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=87#comment213 "If Tevez hadn't played in those last few games, would West Ham have stayed up?No, so therefore West Ham should compensate Sheffield United!"You know that how?Time machine?Crystal ball?Inter-dimensional portal? Fri 03 Oct 2008 07:34:29 GMT+1 dannylau http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=87#comment212 "If Tevez hadn't played in those last few games, would West Ham have stayed up?No, so therefore West Ham should compensate Sheffield United!"Why? Tevez had the PLs permission to play in the last few games or do Sheffield Utd have the final say on who is and who isn't allowed to play in the premiership Fri 03 Oct 2008 07:23:55 GMT+1 goatero http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=86#comment211 This post has been Removed Fri 03 Oct 2008 06:43:14 GMT+1 I dont want a display name http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=86#comment210 There's a much stronger case for arguing that West Ham wouldn't have been in the relegation battle in the first place if Tevez and Mascherano hadn't been foisted upon them.Before their arrival, West Ham had scored four points from three games.In the six games after their arrival, West Ham scored only one point.Tevez played sixteen league games before scoring. In those sixteen games, West Ham recorded two wins, two draws and 12 defeats and during that period, also lost to League One (now League Two) Chesterfield, oh, and had their manager sacked.Don't get me wrong Tevez was a good player and a hard worker and he came good in the last few games but his contribution over the season was more negative than positive. Fri 03 Oct 2008 05:43:16 GMT+1 Jayson Gabler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=86#comment209 If Tevez hadn't played in those last few games, would West Ham have stayed up?No, so therefore West Ham should compensate Sheffield United! Fri 03 Oct 2008 03:14:14 GMT+1 S33Blade http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=85#comment208 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 23:47:40 GMT+1 stevehigh5 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=85#comment207 It is getting both ridiculous and dangerous, this situation. Do WHUFC now have to sue the FA for Dean Ashton's injury that kept him out all of that season? If Ashton had been fit would Tevez had played at all. Initially Tevez did not make an impact and Mascherano was soon dropped as there was plenty of midfielders. Would Tevez also have been dropped if Ashton had been fit? At the end of the season WHU stayed up because Sheffield Utd didn't have players good enough. If it hadn't been Tevez it would have been someone else. It wasn't Tevez that lost SU's last game against Wigan, it was their own players. Thu 02 Oct 2008 22:32:52 GMT+1 enfield951 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=84#comment206 Just one simple question.Did West Ham, in going to this Arbitration Panel, agree to abide by it's decision, knowing there was no right of appeal ?If they did,which I suspect to be the case,then hard cheddar mate ! Thu 02 Oct 2008 22:21:04 GMT+1 phillyboyhammer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=84#comment205 Sheffield United Football Club, in my mind were no doubt are reacting to a second time relegation which almost mirrored the previous. The high drama of losing a home advantage game they must win but lost left a very sour taste in their mouths and yet it is somehow attributed to tevez playing for Westham AND It only became an issue when relegation was confirmed. Tell me, Is Tevez responsible for SUFC losing a 10 point safety net clear of relegation that they had in January of that season. Let's not forget Tevez was in the West Ham team that SUFC beat three nil at bramall lane. That day there was smiles all round and high fives from those assembled. West Ham were a shambles (and yes, with Tevez on the pitch). There was no mention of an unfair advantage that day? So, SUFC lose 10 points while others around them gain. Time to sue? Not yet. West Ham beat Man United twice last season. Home (with no Tevez on the pitch, Sheringham gave off the bench over Tevez) and away with Tevez on the pitch. Tevez did not take to the pitch for most of the time he was a West Ham player and when he did he couldn't find the net for his first 9 games? Was there talk of an unfair advantage then 'or' the probability of taking West Ham to court by SUFC? Certainly not. So, West Ham sack Pardew. They hire Curbishley and buy Lucas Neil and a couple of other players to bolster the defence who stop conceding goals. The 'team' hit form and Tevez and Zamora strike up a partnership - Teddy Sheringham was selected more times over Tevez. West Ham survive. Last day Scenario. West Ham survive SUFC go down and start screaming West Ham are cheats. So Tevez was responsible for you losing all those games? or for West Ham winning theirs (forgive me for asking but I just want to know where SUFC think West Ham gained a unfair advantage). West Ham broke the rules? Yes they did, previous regime handed the new owners a poison chalice. A matter for the EPL V West Ham (not SUFC). A five million pound fine no points deducted. If I'm not mistaken all premiership sides sign up to agreement the action the EPL will take. Once relegated SUFC are not happy and try to bring West Ham through every court in the land and fail at each attempt. Should SUFC not being taking the EPL to court for not applying in hindsight of their relegation they should have deducted West Ham points? If you sling mud long enough some of it has to stick. SUFC are a disgrace. They have brought the sport into disrepute. I hope West Ham counter sue for defamation of character eventually. It would The panel needs it's head examined for it's done and the pandora box it's opened. As someone said it's a culture in breeding claim and counter claim on sporting matters to make money. It does not bode well for the future of the game. It would be nice to see SUFC lose out in the long run with costs against them - now there's justice. Kia Joorabchin still owns Tevez commercial rights? The very rule West Ham broke and were fined for. The EPL have allowed it that he is 'on loan' from West Ham to Man United. So something is not right. Ultimately West Ham may end up suing the EPL any moneies lost in this sham of a situation they find themselves in. Thu 02 Oct 2008 21:27:39 GMT+1 marbellion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=83#comment204 all the people going on about tim howards transfer from man u to everton, i thought the transfer was agreed but not concluded til the end of the season so he remained on loan at everton, meaning he wasn't allowed to play against man u. i'm not sure if thats right but i seem to remember something about it at the time. Thu 02 Oct 2008 21:15:58 GMT+1 Exiledblade http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=83#comment203 Here is a little conundrum for all those who think that Tevez "was always legally registered"After the independent commission hearing it was announced that if West Ham did not remove the contentious clause, the Tevez registration would be terminated.He was of course playing under the same contract as he had been prior to the hearing.How on earth could his registration be terminated?Why did West Ham not challenge this? Thu 02 Oct 2008 21:09:09 GMT+1 anyonegotthis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=83#comment202 "Double Jeopardy" is a wholly inappropriate term here. It used to be (it no longer is) a principle that said where a defendant was found not guilty of an offence he could not be re-tried for the same offence. Here West Ham were found to have breached one or more rules and were fined (but the FA decided not to deduct points) and then SU have sought to invoke an arbitration procedure to claim damages from WHU.The Pettigrew comparison is inapt - the Olympic gold medal was not based on 38 races over the period of a year during which different competitors competed for the US and for the other teams against which they were competing and there was no impact on such preceding races in deciding how the competing teams should apply tactics in the races as they proceeded.If the arbitration ruling is appealed and heard by a sensible judge then WHU will not have to pay any damages to SU for the following reasons:-1. It is a matter for the Premier League to decide how to punish breaches of its rules and it made its decision to make a fine against WHU. That decision has not been successfully appealed. If the Premier League got it wrong then SU could try suing the Premier League but not WHU.2. The Premier League rules are set up to regulate how the members conduct themselves and not to provide a regime for claims between clubs. Where there is procedure for which all clubs sign up to punich breaches or the rules then there is no reason to need another damages-based regime to ensure compliance with the rules.3. WHU did not breach any duty of care to SU and owed them no duty under any contract. This is a completely different situation to an ordinary civil claim for damages - WHU did not cause personal injuries to any of SU's players or fail to comply with any contract with SU for the sale of a player. Does anyone, for instance, believe that it would be sensible or reasonable for the England players and manager to have sued Argentina or Diego Maradona for lost prize money, advertising revenue and salary increases that would have followed if the hand of God goal had not been awarded?4. It is impossible to conclude that because Tevez played for WHU they acquired more points than they would have done if he had not played for them. There is a chance that might have been so but it is absolutely impossible to know his appearances produced more points for them. Unlike a simple sprint race there are an infinite number of factors that contribute to the season-end position of a team in the Premier League.5. Even if there was a right for any Premier League teams to pursue a claim for damages against WHU for their breach of Premier League rules then there is no valid basis for concluding that the fairest way to remedy the breach is to assess the loss on the basis that there should have been a deduction of points from WHU but not from anyone else - the impact of playing WHU was not the same for the other teams in the league. A fairer approach would be to treat all WHU games as void and recalculate the points for everyone during that season on the basis that no points were awarded for any game played against WHU. I have not done the maths but that may mean that SU would still have gone down and may well have resulted in the positions for all teams in the league being different and a series of financial adjustments would have ben required (some being almost impossible to calculate - for instance a team may have qualified for European football in a recalculated league but who knows how far they would have gone in such tournament). Clearly this approach though fairer would be impossible to put into practice and you can see why a fine made more sense. Thu 02 Oct 2008 21:01:59 GMT+1 cheeky_nffc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=82#comment201 sheffield united would've stayed up had they beaten wigan at home.they didn't, and deserved to go down on that basis alone.simple as. Thu 02 Oct 2008 19:57:20 GMT+1 erskinej http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=82#comment200 Red_Blogger:"Did the FA show fair play to Sheffield United, who had played by the rules by only giving the hammers a fine when a points deduction was obviously called for?"Hahahhhahahhahhhahh.......The blades played by the rules did they? Not according to their own website, Watfords website and their own manager at the time. Hypocrisy in the extreme.... Thu 02 Oct 2008 19:53:12 GMT+1 erskinej http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=81#comment199 "You can't really use "we did ok last season, so we would have been ok this season" as an arguement. It is impossible to say how West Ham would have got on without Tevez."Agreed - it is impossible to judge one way or the other. So, no judge, court or arbitration panel should even try!But the blades have opened up Pandora's box with their ludicrous (and hypocritical) pursuit of money (oops, justice?). Thu 02 Oct 2008 19:39:21 GMT+1 LivingWithLions http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=81#comment198 Re: #195It is not true that 83% of West Ham fans voted Carlos Tevez as Player of the Year: I don't know if the percentage figure is correct (i've no reason to think it isn't) but this percentage would relate to the number of fans WHO VOTED, which would be a tiny proportion of the total number of West Ham fans (I've been a West Ham season ticket holder for twenty years and I have NEVER voted).Also, to be slightly pedantic, the award is actually HAMMER of the year, and could just as easily (and often is) given for a player putting in a lot of effort, etc. rather than being particularly influential.The point I would make is this: a West Ham team without Carlos Tevez finished ninth the season before and tenth the season after; a Carlos Tevez inspired one finished fifteenth. If, as certain "experts" are claiming, Carlos Tevez made such a difference, can one of them explain what it was that caused a team to effectively drop ten places in the league for one season and was miraculously reversed the following season? All suggestions welcome... Thu 02 Oct 2008 18:39:00 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=81#comment197 "Can any of the West Ham fans who claim Tevez was so irrelevant to their season explain why 83% (EIGHTY THREE PERCENT!!!!) of you voted him West Ham's player of the season? "What on earth has that got to do with it?Take a look back at our previous HOTY and you will see it's not always the best player that wins it. Occasionally, the player who catches the imagination does.By the way, if Tevez was the reason we won at Man U (irrespective of his goal) why was Robert Green voted Man of the Match by one of Sheffield Uniteds "witnesses"? Thu 02 Oct 2008 18:34:38 GMT+1 hakeha http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=80#comment196 'Funny how they only complained once Wigan had relegated them and they realised they might have some sort of case and/or excuse.'A few teams (Sheff Utd, I think Wigan, possibly Bham if they were around that part of the Prem that season) said that they would complain and support each other if one of them went down (unless complaining meant that they would go down themselves, in which case they would stay neutral). And besides, how could they sue for lost earnings as a result of going down BEFORE they had been relegated!? In my view they should have taken away all goals scored by Tevez and adjusted the results accordingly. I don't know how many he scored or how crucial they would be in this situation but it would be more of a 'relevant' punishment. And no one would really be able to complain. Thu 02 Oct 2008 18:32:52 GMT+1 dannylau http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=80#comment195 Interestingly the 3rd party rules was added to the rulebook to prevent clubs from selling players with a clause that stopped them playing against their own club, a rule that seems to be regularly circumvented.But the rule was put in place to stop clubs gaining an advantage.West Ham broke the rule no disputing that but there was no advantage as the clause that broke the rules stated that Tevez could be sold at any time. The bulk of the fine that west ham got was for not submitting the paper work and thus misleading the PL not for the 3rd party influence.Sheffield Utd did gain an advantage when they stopped Steve Kabba playing against them, but as the agreement was verbal no action was taken.Tevez being worth 3 point or not as the case may be seems to me to be a nonsense.The penalty given to West Ham was mild but that's not their fault. Thu 02 Oct 2008 17:52:39 GMT+1 BobBookah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=79#comment194 Can any of the West Ham fans who claim Tevez was so irrelevant to their season explain why 83% (EIGHTY THREE PERCENT!!!!) of you voted him West Ham's player of the season? Thu 02 Oct 2008 17:37:01 GMT+1 n1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=79#comment193 Thanks BectonYou see that is where I have a problem there are some on here (not you Becton) who post (on this forum and others) as if they are quoting directly from the report, manipulating what they believe the report has said to promote their view, happy in the knowledge that at this moment in time there is no way of disputing what they say as the final report is not readily available. Now it may be the case that someone is sitting with the report in front of them and contributing to this and other forums, but I would question their motives. Like you I wonder who would feel they would benefit from the leaks to the media and selective quotes on forums like this.Its interesting to note that the reason the case has been further delayed is to give the new lawyers employed by West Ham a chance to digest the report due to its size, yet some on here would like you to believe they have it all committed to memory. Thu 02 Oct 2008 17:20:47 GMT+1 richard2161 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=79#comment192 Can somebody please explain why Sheffield United are bringing the compensation claim against WHU and not the body that made the original decision to fine West Ham?By my reckoning they made the ruling before the end of the season after which West Ham abided by the decision and rules. Subsequently they won 4 of their last six games and stayed up.All credit to West Ham and their management. Thu 02 Oct 2008 17:11:58 GMT+1 WalterHills http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=78#comment191 Guanajuato is a good example of the double standards at work here. He says that the Kabba question is not the same because Kabba wasn't a good player. In other words, it's okay to break the rules of 3rd party ownership if a player is ultimately ineffectual, but not if he turns out to have an effect.What about Man U not allowing Tim Howard to play against them for Everton in the same season? A rookie goalie came in, dropped a clanger and Man U won. If they hadn't then Chelski would have won the league. If we're goint to be consistent about this, then the league title for the 06/07 season should be awarded to Chelsea.Where does this end?.... Thu 02 Oct 2008 17:09:22 GMT+1 beckton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=78#comment190 bluebits.Ashton missed the whole season because he was injured in training by Wright-Phillips whilst on England duty.Tevez did score the winner at Old Trafford but West Ham only needed to draw to stay up, Rob Green the goalkeeper won MOM.Tevez failed to score in 20 consecutive games he played in until he scored in the home defeat against Spurs.Le Tissier brilliant player that he was couldn't have did what he did without his teamates. Thu 02 Oct 2008 17:03:43 GMT+1 beckton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=77#comment189 sadbloke,The Daily Mail put an abbreviated and then a fuller version of the judgement on there website and then took it down.Presumably it was leaked to them, I wonder who?They presumably they had to take it down as it broke the confidentually agreememt of the arbitration panel.It has been on West Ham and Sheffield fan websites aswell.If you hunt around you might find it though, it must be said it may only be a draft and not a final judgement.I cant put any link up as the the fan sites that have had it up in the past or have it still may get into trouble. Thu 02 Oct 2008 16:50:00 GMT+1 Nick Ebrell http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=77#comment188 A lot of defence in favour of West Ham goes along the lines of 'one player cannot influence the season'. This of course is rubbish and they are fooling themselves.Who do people think kept Southampton in the top flight for more than a decade? Francis Benali?Tevez's play once he hit form in the run-in single handedly kept West Ham up... Ok, people are siting Ashton as a strong influence, but if Tevez was not playing WHUFC would have gone down. If it wasn't down to him, why would a player who jumped ship days after safety be so lauded at Upton Park every time he returns. He even scored a brilliant winner against Man U to stay up no? So if he was illegally fielded, I'm with Sheffield Utd. Though I do see where arguments come from that its the authorities who should cough up rather than West Ham. Thu 02 Oct 2008 16:33:17 GMT+1 erskinej http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=76#comment187 My response to wolf pack (no names, please.... says it all) is that he is factually incorrect:"the other clubs did no wrong"So, despite all parties pretty much openly admitting that there was a 3rd party agreement (albeit not in writing) that Steve Kabba would not play against his old club when the blades won 1-0 you are trying to say that the poor blades were victims of 3rd party influence not perpetrators. What next West Ham to counterclaim about the watford game and whether Kabba would have scored against his old club and denied them a further two points if not all three? Ex-players always seem to score against everyone. Interestingly, West Ham are only guilty of entering into a 3rd party agreement rather than actually honouring it and allowing it to affect playing matters (unlike SU who did both behind the leagues back). I could also point the finger at numerous other clubs (MU chief amongst them) who have broken this same rule in exactly the same way but that would be churlish! Thu 02 Oct 2008 16:29:19 GMT+1 morrisam16 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=76#comment186 I'm not sure I agree with West Ham's contention that this is similar to a double jeopardy situation. If you look at sport as a world in and of itself and compare it the "real" world then the FA would be like a state government and clubs would be citizens. Any punishment handed out would be like being charged and convicted of a crime. Which the FA did with the fine, similar to what might happen to a "real" world citizen. At the same time the Sheffield United is a citizen as well and the crime in a way was committed not only against the state (the FA) but also them. As a result they have a right to sue them in civil court versus the state bring charges in criminal court. This is not double jeopardy these are two separate cases with albeit similar offenses brought in two separate courts. I also think this is a unique situation which does not and will not happen very often and as a result will not set as strong a precedence as some people think.Anyway thats just my two cents into this complicated issue. Thu 02 Oct 2008 16:12:29 GMT+1 beckton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=76#comment185 I see the same old people are repeating the same old mantra again.The Premier sent out a letter in May 2007 to all Premier League clubs and stated that Tevez was alway a registered player and at no time was he ineligible to play.The arbitration panel used an example of contract law, 'Chitty' when our contract was with the Premier League.West Ham were punished by the Premier League who they had the contract with and that should of been end the matter.Sheff Utd were whilst a Premier League were bound by the same contract, which could with there actions prove interesting if they were ever promoted what would happen. Thu 02 Oct 2008 16:07:01 GMT+1 frodo feet vegas http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=75#comment184 Why was the registration not dealt with properly at the start? Surely the west ham franchsie had to submit the correct paperwork? How can it have taken a whole season to work this out? Thu 02 Oct 2008 16:00:49 GMT+1 n1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=75#comment183 Can those of you that claim to have read the tribunals findings, please tell me where it is available for public consumption? Thu 02 Oct 2008 15:41:02 GMT+1 Guanajuato http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=74#comment182 West Ham Broke the rules. That is undeniable - They admitted to that. They did not 'act in good faith' to ALL the other teams in the FAPL.Following the initial punishment, they were warned as to their future conduct. By sending a letter to the parties to a contract, they seem to have been deemed to have terminated the contract, irrespective of whether the other parties agreed. Seems odd to me.If west ham suffer, it's the fans I would feel sorry for - they have done no wrong. However, to take their feelings into account (therefore placing their feelings above those of fans of other clubs) was wrong. Granted, West Ham didn't have any direct influence on that. The West Ham club/business should suffer the consequences.Yes, they pulled off an incredible escape, but that is irrelevant. To those using other sports as precedents - those sports have written punishments for certain offences. e.g. When Yorkshire fielded a british-born youth player who had come through their ranks, he was ineligible as an overseas player because he held a Pakistani passport. A genuine mistake. In the game, his performance was poor. However, the punishment was expulsion from the tournament. They had no comeback because they had agreed to that rule, even if they didn't realise it applied.If it was Wednesday, Leeds or even West Ham suffering, I'd be just as opposed to the way they seem to be getting away with things.Had the FAPL acted properly and investigated the situation when it first appeared in the papers (ie September) then the whole issue could have been nipped in the bud. Richard Scudamore and Dave Richards are as much to blame for the whole mess as West Ham's personnel and Kia Joorabchian.Finally, good luck to the Shammers - Hope to not see you next year. But we might if you get an additional punishment for the continued deceptions. Thu 02 Oct 2008 15:31:30 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=74#comment181 # 180I have read the judgement and the panel does NOT consider the impact over the whole season, they, in fact, dimiss it and concentrate on the last nine games and even said that West Ham were three points better off in the last 2 games with Tevez.The judgement is majorly flawed in it's argument of supposition and mystical fortune telling. How on earth can a panel decide that Tevez was worth "at least 3 points"?He may well have COST West Ham 5 times as many points by excluding our leading goal scorer from the previous season.Zamora scored half as many goals again as Tevez, is he worth 5 points a season?Green kept 5 clean sheets in the last 9 games, is he worth 8 points a season?You can't tell and neither can the panel. It was a ridiculous statement and one which will prove the undoing of the Arbitration Panel. Thu 02 Oct 2008 15:08:02 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=74#comment180 #178Where is the precedent that says West Ham should have been relegated?Can you provide evidence that this particular offence has occurred and a team were deducted points/relegated for it?I bet you can't!The PL fined West Ham.That's it.A Fine.Whether it was right is up to the PL to decide, not Sheffield United. Thu 02 Oct 2008 15:02:14 GMT+1 Exiledblade http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=73#comment179 You guys are really going round in circles now, but you could all save yourslves a lot of effort if you read the tribunal report before makingg further comment. The report explains how it comes to value the Tevez contribution over the season as a whole as at least being worth 3 points. Both the original independent commission and the tribunal were in agreement that the Premier League WOULD NOT have allowed Tevez to be registered if the whole truth about his contractual status had been revealed to them. (Registration criteria are the responsibility of the competition to which they apply - entirely independent of FIFA).There is no double jeopardy in this case. WHU were punished for breaching Rules B13 and U18. This case is about the consequences of breaching the rules and the effect it had on one other party who suffered material damage as a result of the breach.The effect of SUFC's own poor performance as a factor in tandem with the rule breach is considered in depth by the tribunal and is an important legal point well covered by case law. Thu 02 Oct 2008 14:58:10 GMT+1 adam_gregory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=73#comment178 I am a man utd fan and I think that even if west ham played tevez at the end of the season Sheff Utd would have still gone down because they didn't have enough points. It is nothing to do with tevez on his own because west ham played well near the end of the season and played well as a team not just with tevez as the individual. Thu 02 Oct 2008 14:52:12 GMT+1 deadwood1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=72#comment177 Sheff Utd were really given a raw deal herethe west ham effect was clearly significant. However I dont think that west ham can take all the blame. the premier league got it wrong west ham should have been deducted points relegated and thats that. if compensation due to sheff utd should come from premier league for getting it wrong.Secondly fulham were very poor that year, got virtually no points at end of season but got 3 pts against liverpool. Liverpool fielded a virtual reserve team in that fixture. They had a champions league fixture midweek and the league was irrelevant for them. Fulham survived because of these 3 points.The whole thing is a bit of a mess and sheff utd got a really raw deal.if wigan had lost to sheff u on last game of season then they would be fighting same battle. the Wigan chairman gave full suport to sheff in their action and that is also imprortant.ultimately there is no excuse West Ham should have been relegated. Absolutely amazing that they were not. Thu 02 Oct 2008 14:41:27 GMT+1 BobBookah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=72#comment176 I find it fascinating that most West Ham fans are adopting a defensively aggressive stance on this issue, name calling, wildly inaccurate claims etc. Maybe a list of irrefutable facts might be in order:West Ham United signed Tevez and Mascherano, Argentinians international with a combined value of approximately £50m on contracts which gave a 3rd party influence over both players. Such influence is forbidden by Premier League rules.After a lengthy delay, the Premier League imposed a fine of £5.5m on West Ham. Whilst admitting that a points deduction was considered, it was decided against imposing such a penalty, as to do so at that stage would guarantee relegation and ‘upset the fans’.West Ham were told that if they ripped up the offending contract then Tevez would be available for the final 3 games of the season. West Ham told the Premier League that this was the case, Tevez played the final 3 games, scored 3 goals, provided 3 assists and was instrumental in West Ham winning all 3 games and staying up. Sheffield United appealed against the decision not to deduct points, and whilst the commission said that they had every sympathy, and themselves would have imposed a points deduction, they were unable to overturn the decision.Sheffield United and West Ham then entered into a binding tribunal re compensation, Sheffield United claiming that West Ham had benefited by playing an illegally registered player.This tribunal uncovered evidence that West Ham had lied with regard to ripping up the offending contract, and had in fact secretly promised to honour it. This enabled Tevez to play in the last 3 matches, as the Premier League had stated that had they not received the assurances from West Ham, then they would not have allowed Tevez to play in these games. They found in Sheffield United’s favour and further meetings to decide the amount due to Sheffield United must now take place. In the meantime, West Ham are seeking to appeal against the decision to CAS and possibly the High Court, despite signing agreements that they would abide by the findings. The Premier League has yet to comment on the findings, and whether or not they will take any further action against West Ham over accusations of deceit over the ripping up of the offending contract. West Ham fans accuse Sheffield United of 3rd party interference in the Steve Kabba affair. This transfer was investigated thoroughly by the Premier League, and no wrongdoing was found to have taken place, and no 3rd party agreement existed. West Ham fans also accuse Sheffield United of playing a weakened side v Manchester United, thus neglecting their duty to the other title chasing sides. Their line up that day was Kenny, Morgan, Jagielka, Shelton, Webber, Kozluk, Kilgallon, Montgomery, Tonge, Geary, Kazim Richards. The only non-regular in that side was Shelton, who is a full international, performed excellently and was Sheffield United’s man of the match. This cannot in any way, shape or form be considered a weakened side.There is nothing in this account that is not factual. Thu 02 Oct 2008 14:37:56 GMT+1 cov1985 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=72#comment175 gebreeze,This question is (very) off subject, but just for my own understanding, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't "presuming against the wrongdoer" contradict "innocent until proven guilty"? May be completely irrelevant, but like I said, I'm just curoius!!! Thu 02 Oct 2008 14:34:59 GMT+1 gebeeze http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=71#comment174 I'm not sure why the issue of quantifying Tevez's contribution is at all being discussed. Take for example the case of Lupton v White- where the defendant mixes the claimant's property with his own so that it is no longer identifiable, it is presumed that the whole belongs to the claimant. The defendant must show that he contributed to the mixed bulk of property. In other words evidentiary problems such as the Tevez affair arise all the time in the law- and we solve them by presuming against the wrongdoer. West Ham broke the rules- THEY have created the evidentiary difficulties here- so they should have the burden of proving that Tevez did not contribute to their survival. That is how it works at law- I find it quite disconcerting that lawyers are being treated like they have no place in this discussion. The fact is that lawyers have much more experience than most lay people in cases such as this, and that also means that we have developed ways to achieve the most sensible and just results. We see this all the time- with discussions on Match of the Day and the Sky Sports studios often descedning into arguments about laws and their application. I'm not saying that lawyers should be running the sport, but maybe that we have a fresh perspective on a number of issues that are raiseed by the beautiful game. Thu 02 Oct 2008 14:22:45 GMT+1 dad242 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=71#comment173 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 14:03:00 GMT+1 GarryC http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=70#comment172 If West Ham were deducted points that would have meant certain relegation. Would West Ham have given their all or would they have just played the rest of the season as a Sunday afternoon kick about? I believe the latter, and that would have had a bigger influence, not just on relegation issues but Champions League and UEFA cup places as well. The Premier League punished West Ham the way they saw fit with the least disruption to all the other league teams. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:59:12 GMT+1 n1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=70#comment171 I still see many on here referring to the FA and the punishment it handed out, well this is wrong and is in my opinion one of the reasons this is all still going on. All the original punishments and tribunals were under the Premier League not the F.A. The F.A. wanted nothing to do with this at the time and it is my understanding that just as there is nothing against 3rd party ownership/influence in FIFA or UFEA rules there was nothing in F.A. rules about third party ownership at the time. In my opinion what we are seeing now has much to do with the F.A.’s relationship with the Premier League, or is it just coincidence that this is the first tribunal run by the F.A. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:58:47 GMT+1 beckton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=69#comment170 The players were NEVER ineligible according to the Premier League!A rule was broken on third party influence that broke Premier League rules but not FA or FIFA rules.Other leagues in Europe and South America don't have this rule, Scudamore actually said the Premier League is the only league in the world that has this rule.The FA and FIFA said both players were registered and were never ineligible.Can people just stop listening to propaganda a rule on contracts was broken, which the Premier League said if it had been sorted out at the beginning as the Liverpool and Man U deals were, it wouldn't have been a problem. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:51:35 GMT+1 MOYESYSIDE http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=69#comment169 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:48:38 GMT+1 Viskahn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=69#comment168 The argument i hear a lot now and have come to agree with, is that it is the FA that owe Sheffield United compensation, and not West Ham;It was the FA who made the decision to fine the Hammers and retain the Blades' relegation from the premiership. West Ham didnt make that decision, West Ham should not be held accountable for the cost of it. It was the FA that put Sheffield into the Championship and let West Ham stay in the Premiership, West Ham paid their fine, any further cost that is supposedly incurred as a result should be paid by the FA, not the Hammers. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:38:34 GMT+1 n1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=68#comment167 Here we all are talking about a possible £30m compensation when, any settlement was not even due to have discussions started until today, so who came up with £30m and why is the number in the public domain ?Well in my opinion you only have to look back at the previous hearings and tribunals, one side was constantly leaking stories about what facts they had and how damming they would be and very often nothing ever came of these so called facts, they were just used to whip up the media frenzy and earn sympathy for their case, now here we are again with leaks being made about the unpublished ruling and a settlement number being quoted even before the tribunal has sat down to deliberate it.Just an aside for the statisticians in the 13 seasons the premier league has consisted of 20 teams the average number of points required to avoided relegation 39. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:36:47 GMT+1 cov1985 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=68#comment166 #164 and 165I suppose I should probably point out that my opinion is that you cannot possibly say what impact Tevez had. So the whole issue with Sheffield United suing is ridiculous, it cannot possibly be proved that they went down as a result of Tevez playing for West Ham. It is equally ridiculous arguing (not that anybody is, I'm just saying) "We'd have won if we'd have got that penalty" or something similar, because that's not how the world works. Cause and effect and what not. However, the BBC boards always seem to be full of this!From reading back my comments, I feel that they may have been read as having a go at you guys, which I'm not. I'm of the opinion that West Ham cheated, they've been punished (whether the punishment was harsh enough is another matter) and that SUFC should accept that. If they don't accept it, surely their gripe is with the FA who did not sanction the points deduction they were after. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:28:58 GMT+1 SecretSam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=67#comment165 Post 152, Mickey Dred - spot on. If they broke the rules, the players were ineligible, therefore if they touched the field of play then any points would be forfeit, even if West Ham won 10-0 Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:14:05 GMT+1 chestham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=67#comment164 @ 160This is the point, it is insane to say we could or couldn’t or what might or might not have happened but I’m saying if your ganna take 1 game or 9 games, surely you need to take into account, 38 games and then other seasons to stand any chance of actually working the impact of a player on a team.But if you look at the bigger picture it shows a completely picture to the ruling made by the panel. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:07:20 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=67#comment163 #160By the same token, it is impossible for the arbitration panel to say what the positive impact Tevez had as well. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:06:36 GMT+1 Hammers Dad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=66#comment162 *Sigh*"West Ham broke Premiership rules when they signed Tevez and Mascherano while the agent , a third party retained ownership. This was to save them paying a transfer fee . This came to light on Mascherano's transfer to Liverpool ."No they didn't. They had a seperate agreement that the owners could move them without consultation. This is considered 3rd party influence and subsequently against the rules. The pair were signed ON LOAN. No transfer fee was ever going to be paid, it never is ON LOAN SIGNINGS. Yes, MSI did retain ownership, the same way that any club loaning a player to another club retains ownership. They were both REGISTERED to West Ham as required."Each match that Tevez and Mascherano played in , the were guilty of fielding anineligible player , the usual punishment iis that any points from the match areforfeit or in the case of a Cup match the game is awarded to the other team (Chesterv Bury)."No they weren't. Tevez was registered correctly to play for West Ham. He was registered correctly for every single game he played in. West Ham were not in breach of the rules regarding registration."Tevez's effect , each match he played in , he was ineligible , so any points won byWest Ham when he played should be forfeit."No he wasn't. No they shouldn't."Instead they were fined 5.5 M knowing they would gain 40m from staying in the Prem."Do you think West Ham had a say in the punishment?You would think that, seeing as this has been ongoing for nigh on 2 years, people would know what the problem/offence was rather than spouting all sorts of nonsense about inelligble players. Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:05:21 GMT+1 SecretSam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=66#comment161 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:00:20 GMT+1 Sheildscomment http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=65#comment160 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 13:00:04 GMT+1 cov1985 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=65#comment159 #158"c. What ever way you look at it, the impact of Tevez and mascarano on the club was negative, that?s why we where bottom of the league, the seaon before with the same team without those 2 we finished 7th and reached the cup final, the season after he left we finished 10th, during the season when they played we scored less points than when they didn?t play."You can't really use "we did ok last season, so we would have been ok this season" as an arguement. It is impossible to say how West Ham would have got on without Tevez. Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:58:53 GMT+1 chestham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=65#comment158 Also west ham didn’t win the 66 world cup, the 3 best players on the pitch couldn’t win the world cup on their own,It’s team effort………..I’m sure you’d agree yes Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:53:54 GMT+1 chestham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=64#comment157 a. the premier leaguer back the trendy London club over northerners – where there not 3 London clubs in the relegation battleb. people keep using clubs that have gone into administration getting docked points as opposed to fines as some kind of example, so should we now give these clubs fines, can someone explain how this would work.c. What ever way you look at it, the impact of Tevez and mascarano on the club was negative, that’s why we where bottom of the league, the seaon before with the same team without those 2 we finished 7th and reached the cup final, the season after he left we finished 10th, during the season when they played we scored less points than when they didn’t play.d. Tevez is on loan at man united and at the end of season he’ll be off at the descression of his 3rd party owner, plain and simple, all they have is a more carefully thought out contract but in effect no difference, e. 3rd party ownership at the time was not illegal only now is it illegal (except at man u) Tevez was never illegible, do you think we snuck him onto the pitch without anybody seeing, it was quite a high profile deal if anyone remembers, west ham where given permission to play him from the PL. if as is said new evidence has come to light surely it’s down to premier league to judge on it’s relevance, as they would be aware how much they knew or didn’t know and where involved throughout the whole sorry episode. Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:44:44 GMT+1 squaremonkee http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=64#comment156 Any Super League Rugby League fans on here? This season Hull F.C fielded an ineligible player, Jamie Thackary in the Challenge cup tournament- arguably Rugby League's most prestigious trophy. He scored vital tries in at least two rounds of the competition that contributed to Hull winning those games.Hull went on to play him in the knock-out stages and even went on to reach the final- where they played him. Was there any complaints from the teams who were knocked out by Hull at this stage? These included Bradford- a high profile team whose views could potentially be influential. No- because Hull were punished accordingly through a fine beforehand. They took their punishment, paid the price of cheating, and thus were allowed to carry on playing Thackary and on with their own business as usual. A bit like West Ham- okay the outcome- relegation, loss of money etc are different, but it's essentially the same sort of case. So why can't Sheffiled Utd just accept that? If they think they have the right to compensation, pursue this from the FA. As others have rightly pointed out, teams such as Charlton and Watford have just as much right to complain and launch an appeal, but their actions take place where it matters, on the pitch. Football is a sport played by full time professionals, there should be no room for cry babies. Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:44:12 GMT+1 intrepidfox25 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=63#comment155 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:39:29 GMT+1 Guanajuato http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=63#comment154 "I like the fact that you keep completely ignoring the fact that Tevez also played in the majority if West Ham games that they lost, including against Sheffield United."The fact is West Ham broke the rules and lied to the FAPL on several occasions - whether that was to be allowed to play Tevez or to be allowed to play a chimpanzee is irrelevant. The fact is they broke the rules. They have been found guilty of this, and as the luton fan pointed out, other teams breaking rule regarding unfairly fielding players have had points docked."I also like the fact that you keep getting so worked up, to the point that the moderators keep deleting your posts and you then call it southern censorship."No, the moderators have removed my post for 'potential defamatory' comments. When I replaced an 8-letter word beginning with 'C' with "Broke the rules" posts have been allowed. When I went possibly a little OTT regarding the whole can of worms that has been opened, the post was removed. When I asked about Mr Joorabchian's status with west ham following the out of court settlement, the post was removed. I have not claimed 'Southern Censorship' - I made a sarcy comment about Censorship, and stated that as the BBC is based in London, it is quite likely to employ people from London. People from London are more likely to support West Ham than SUFC. Would you not agree? Not ONCE have I resorted to obscenities or borderline racial slurs as some other posters have done."If it were Charlton fans who were sueing then West Ham would be the northerners wouldn't they? But the fact is, Charlton don't carry a big inferiority complex and a chip on their shoulder and would have more dignity than blaming everyone else for not being good enough."Would you care to show me the post where I said it was a North-South thing? You won't find it, and not because its been removed. You won't find it because I said that the reporting seems to favour west ham rather than Sheffield United because west ham are a 'media darling' club - they won the '66 world cup donchaknow. I suspect Charlton would have had exactly the same media treatment had it been them in SUFC's position."THE BEST 21 TEAMS SHOULD STAY UP AND WEST HAM WAS ONE AD SHEFFIELD UNITED WASN'T."But if one of those 21 teams is better because they have broken the rules, is it not reasonable to be aggrieved?If you wonder why United fans feel a little aggrieved, look up the changes to administration rules following Leicester's shenanigans. Look up Hans Segers and the changes to the Loan system after that. See if you can find out the club that suffered most. Finally we have a chairman who has been willing to stand up and say enough is enough. Ancient history no doubt you'll say. Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:36:32 GMT+1 Richyburger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=62#comment153 The lawyers wouldn't be involved if West Ham hadn't broken the rules, therefore their claim that it wouldn't be in the interests of football to allow lawyers to decide sporting issues is more than a little bit hollow. Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:36:24 GMT+1 mister_mister609 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=62#comment152 Sour grapes from Sheff Utd, looking for a scapegoat for their own inadequacies in the last 11 games. They were in a position of safety and have only themselves to blame.On a wider note, it sets a dangerous precedent for the sport as whole. For example, if Watford get relegated by 1 point, are they in a position to sue Stuart Atwell, the referee in charge, or Reading, or the Championship? Or indeed if Reading are promoted by 1 point, would the teams around them have the same inclination?A ruling has been made, that should be the end of the story. Agreed, a bad decision was made in not docking West Ham points. But, that decision was made and the not inconsiderable sum of £5.5m as a penalty was demanded. How is it that now a group of lawyers can make an assessment that one player had an effect on West Ham's run in to the season? That is ridculous. The whole thing should be thrown out as a laughing stock! Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:32:17 GMT+1 Mikey Dred http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=62#comment151 West Ham broke Premiership rules when they signed Tevez and Mascherano while theagent , a third party retained ownership. This was to save them paying a transferfee . This came to light on Mascherano's transfer to Liverpool .Each match that Tevez and Mascherano played in , the were guilty of fielding anineligible player , the usual punishment iis that any points from the match areforfeit or in the case of a Cup match the game is awarded to the other team (Chesterv Bury).Tevez's effect , each match he played in , he was ineligible , so any points won byWest Ham when he played should be forfeit.Instead they were fined 5.5 M knowing they would gain 40m from staying in the Prem. Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:32:03 GMT+1 BoroNorthStander http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=61#comment150 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:25:42 GMT+1 Richyburger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=61#comment149 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:25:07 GMT+1 bigwallace http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=60#comment148 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:24:32 GMT+1 Rich_Owl http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=60#comment147 Before I start, I am a Sheff Wed fan but have a lot of sympathy for the way Sheff United went down. however, I do think this has gone way too far.West Ham broke the rules, and were punished by the Premier League. I agree they should heve been deducted points, but weren't, resulting in Sheff Uniteds relegation. So how can United now sue West Ham? Why not sue the Premier Leafgue for not deducting points? Because the Prem is the final arbiter of all occurences in its jurisdiction (which include player eligability). WHU broke premier leagure rules (no law) and were punished by the Premier League. If West Ham did not beak any UK law, then how can SU now be talking about suing in a court of law? What happens the next time the FA or Premier League make a decision against one club that adversely affects another? Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:24:29 GMT+1 Richyburger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=60#comment146 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:23:38 GMT+1 Richyburger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=59#comment145 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:23:21 GMT+1 Mikey Dred http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=59#comment144 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:22:55 GMT+1 Richyburger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html?page=58#comment143 This post has been Removed Thu 02 Oct 2008 12:19:44 GMT+1