For all you West Ham haters

[jevs]

For a bit of perspective on this.

This season, Bury fielded a player they had on loan from Hartlepool in a 2nd Round FA Cup tie against Chester who turned out to be ineligable, and were THROWN OUT of the competition, missing out on what would have been (for them) a fairly lucrative 3rd Round tie against Ipswich.

So they "cheated" in one game, and Chester took their place in the next round.

West Ham did the exact same thing against the Albion in the 3rd Round this season (after having LIED to be able to play him), continued in the competition, and all they've had is a tap on the wrist.

This game really stinks sometimes dunnit.

This is really eating you up isn't it....i've never seen so much anger .

Have you thought about councilling. Christ it's almost worth getting relegated in case you burst a blood vessell

Then again

 

[dougdeep]

The fine should have been £30m and 3 points for each game they played.

 

[jevs]

The fine should have been £30m and 3 points for each game they played.

But it wasn't

 

[dougdeep]

But it wasn't

Yet!

 

[Hungry Joe]

If the bloke is playing like a f***ing cart horse, he deserves to be treated like one. As he improves, so does the admiration for him from the fans.

It happens at EVERY club in the world.....including your precious "holier than thou" BHA so go f*** yourself

Well, with that little outburst I think you've just proven what a complete twat you are, well done.

 

[Easy 10]

This is really eating you up isn't it....i've never seen so much anger .

Have you thought about councilling. Christ it's almost worth getting relegated in case you burst a blood vessell

Then again

To be honest, the game is rotten to the core and I just find it all a bit depressing really.

The double-standards in the treatment of "big clubs" and "small clubs". The disgusting issue of ticket allocations where in the European Cup Final, in a stadium of 63,000, the fans get 34,000 tickets with the rest going to the "UEFA family" (ie corporate bigwigs and the black market). The diving, the feigning injury, the abuse. Its all getting a bit much isn't it.

And I'll find it difficult to stomach the sight of West Ham players and board members celebrating staying up when they've actually cheated the League in order to do so, and got away with it. Not the fans fault of course, but your lot don't DESERVE to be in the top flight next season, and I think you know it.

 

[jevs]

Well, with that little outburst I think you've just proven what a complete twat you are, well done.

Thanks mate....truth hurts does it ?

 

[fosters headband]

For a bit of perspective on this.

This season, Bury fielded a player they had on loan from Hartlepool in a 2nd Round FA Cup tie against Chester who turned out to be ineligable, and were THROWN OUT of the competition, missing out on what would have been (for them) a fairly lucrative 3rd Round tie against Ipswich.

So they "cheated" in one game, and Chester took their place in the next round.

West Ham did the exact same thing against the Albion in the 3rd Round this season (after having LIED to be able to play him), continued in the competition, and all they've had is a tap on the wrist.

This game really stinks sometimes dunnit.

I must have missed something here.

When did they lie to the league and what was the lie?
I just seem to remember that the structure of the deal for these two players was well published in the press at the time of signing.

Unless my memory is failing, (very possible at my age) it was said at the time that they were to be loaned to West Ham for one season to possibly get a better deal later. And that there contracts were owned by their agent.

So why did the registration administation of the premier league not pick up on this at the time and why did it take them six months to do so?

 

[Easy 10]

Well, the truth SHOULD hurt (when it gets found out), but in West Hams case it really doesn't, does it.

 

[fosters headband]

Easy please don't get me wrong here, because I don't give a sh*t about the Hammers.
I am interested in what lies have been told.

 

[Easy 10]

Easy please don't get me wrong here, because I don't give a sh*t about the Hammers.
I am interested in what lies have been told.

Here ya go
I've cut n' pasted some stuff from the transcript of the hearing here (and added some comments)
In essence, PL rules dictate that you're not allowed to enter into contracts with 3rd partys when signing players. West Ham ignored this rule and, when questioned, lied to cover it up.

They then admitted to it in January when the (new board) was asked again about it.

http://85.234.132.19/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104666

 

[fosters headband]

Thank's, now I do understand your comments.

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

I must have missed something here.

When did they lie to the league and what was the lie?
I just seem to remember that the structure of the deal for these two players was well published in the press at the time of signing.

Unless my memory is failing, (very possible atmy age) it was said at the time that theywere to be loaned to West Ham for one season to possibly get a better deal later. And that there contracts were owned by their agent.

So why did the registration administation of the premier league not pick up on this at the time and why did it take them six months to do so?

Spot on Foster's.
If anyone would care to actually step back from the hysteria and look at the issues the PL had with the contract, it was 'potential', for a 3rd party to have an influence. For the benefit of Easy 10 here is another C&P job from the judgment explaining the nature of the complaint from the PL.

It is clear to us(the PL), and by their acceptance of the charge also to West Ham, that these contracts constitute a breach of Rule U18 and that those third parties acquired the ability materially to influence the club's policies or performance of the team. We emphasise that there is here no suggestion, no evidence either, that there was such influence, nor any attempt to exert such influence. We have read the statements of Mr Magnusson, the current chairman, and Mr Curbishley, the current manager, and we accept there has been no such influence, nor would they have tolerated any of these third parties seeking to impose such influence.
The Rule goes to the ability to impose such influence and a contract by which a third party seeks the unilateral right as to when a player is transferred (within the transfer window), to whom, and upon what terms, can obviously have that consequence.

The problem for the PL was not whether Tevez and Mascherano were elible to play for WHU, but that a 3rd party had 'potential' influence over appearance and departure from the club. And that despite being assured that no such influence was exerted or would have been tolerated, as there was a non disclosure of a part of the contract alluding to this a punishment was due. A punishment which is over 10 times the financial punishment handed out over any other 'breach of PL rules.'

And whilst I'm on a rant, it has only been in the last two months that WHU have gained any benefit from the arrival of Tevez (Masch doesn't count as he only played for 5 minutes). All of which would have been meaningless as far as staying up is concerned if Sheff Utd and Wigan had actually won an extra game in that period.

As soon as Tevez and Mascherano turned up West Ham's promising start to the season went tits up and somehow managed to break the club record for games without a win. Quite some achievement when such giants of the game like Paul Hilton and Steve Walford had previously been propping up the hammers defence in the past.

I didn't see wigan and sheff utd bleating when they were 10points clear. They are only screaming now because they are threatened with the drop.

Whoever gets relegated this season, and this includes West ham, will go down on merit, because they were not good enough to stay up, pure and simple, and that is how it should be.

 

[Easy 10]

Spot on Foster's.
If anyone would care to actually step back from the hysteria and look at the issues the PL had with the contract, it was 'potential', for a 3rd party to have an influence. For the benefit of Easy 10 here is another C&P job from the judgment explaining the nature of the complaint from the PL.

It is clear to us(the PL), and by their acceptance of the charge also to West Ham, that these contracts constitute a breach of Rule U18 and that those third parties acquired the ability materially to influence the club's policies or performance of the team. We emphasise that there is here no suggestion, no evidence either, that there was such influence, nor any attempt to exert such influence. We have read the statements of Mr Magnusson, the current chairman, and Mr Curbishley, the current manager, and we accept there has been no such influence, nor would they have tolerated any of these third parties seeking to impose such influence.
The Rule goes to the ability to impose such influence and a contract by which a third party seeks the unilateral right as to when a player is transferred (within the transfer window), to whom, and upon what terms, can obviously have that consequence.

The problem for the PL was not whether Tevez and Mascherano were elible to play for WHU, but that a 3rd party had 'potential' influence over appearance and departure from the club. And that despite being assured that no such influence was exerted or would have been tolerated, as there was a non disclosure of a part of the contract alluding to this a punishment was due. A punishment which is over 10 times the financial punishment handed out over any other 'breach of PL rules.'

And whilst I'm on a rant, it has only been in the last two months that WHU have gained any benefit from the arrival of Tevez (Masch doesn't count as he only played for 5 minutes). All of which would have been meaningless as far as staying up is concerned if Sheff Utd and Wigan had actually won an extra game in that period.

As soon as Tevez and Mascherano turned up West Ham's promising start to the season went tits up and somehow managed to break the club record for games without a win. Quite some achievement when such giants of the game like Paul Hilton and Steve Walford had previously been propping up the hammers defence in the past.

I didn't see wigan and sheff utd bleating when they were 10points clear. They are only screaming now because they are threatened with the drop.

Whoever gets relegated this season, and this includes West ham, will go down on merit, because they were not good enough to stay up, pure and simple, and that is how it should be.

Rule U18 states: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its team."

When signing Tevez and Mascherano, West Ham entered into a private agreement with the companies who owned their economic rights.

The contract stated, among other things, that those companies had the right to terminate the players' contracts upon payment to West Ham of £2m (in Tevez's case) or £150,000 (for Mascherano) in the January transfer window.

By entering into that agreement, West Ham clearly broke rule U18. Forget "potential". Forget whether there was an "attempt" to exert any influence. Thats irrelevent. The rule is in place for a reason and is quite clear. The rule was BROKEN by West Ham, and they then knowingly LIED about it to the PL.

The section you paste from the PL inquiry is merely their weasley attempt at justifictation to grease their way out of what should have been their DUTY of deducting points for this breach of their rules.

And perhaps the objections from Wigan et-al were not quite so loud a few months ago when West Ham were so far adrift. But then again, its only recently that the full facts of the inquiry have come out and been made public. I'm sorry but the whole thing absolutely REEKS, and I'm surprised you think otherwise.

 

[jevs]

It is clear to us(the PL), and by their acceptance of the charge also to West Ham, that these contracts constitute a breach of Rule U18 and that those third parties acquired the ability materially to influence the club's policies or performance of the team. We emphasise that there is here no suggestion, no evidence either, that there was such influence, nor any attempt to exert such influence. We have read the statements of Mr Magnusson, the current chairman, and Mr Curbishley, the current manager, and we accept there has been no such influence, nor would they have tolerated any of these third parties seeking to impose such influence.
The Rule goes to the ability to impose such influence and a contract by which a third party seeks the unilateral right as to when a player is transferred (within the transfer window), to whom, and upon what terms, can obviously have that consequence.

The problem for the PL was not whether Tevez and Mascherano were elible to play for WHU, but that a 3rd party had 'potential' influence over appearance and departure from the club. And that despite being assured that no such influence was exerted or would have been tolerated, as there was a non disclosure of a part of the contract alluding to this a punishment was due. A punishment which is over 10 times the financial punishment handed out over any other 'breach of PL rules.'

.

So there you have it, easy 10 ....i trust you will now get off your bitterness train and chill out a bit and support the mighty hammers this afternoon as we're just too big a club to go down .

I do also believe that no team has ever been charged with this offence so no precident has ever been set in terms of punishment.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Rule U18 states: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its team."

When signing Tevez and Mascherano, West Ham entered into a private agreement with the companies who owned their economic rights.

The contract stated, among other things, that those companies had the right to terminate the players' contracts upon payment to West Ham of £2m (in Tevez's case) or £150,000 (for Mascherano) in the January transfer window.

By entering into that agreement, West Ham clearly broke rule U18. Forget "potential". Forget whether there was an "attempt" to exert any influence. Thats irrelevent. The rule is in place for a reason and is quite clear. The rule was BROKEN by West Ham, and they then knowingly LIED about it to the PL.

The section you paste from the PL inquiry is merely their weasley attempt at justifictation to grease their way out of what should have been their DUTY of deducting points for this breach of their rules.

And perhaps the objections from Wigan et-al were not quite so loud a few months ago when West Ham were so far adrift. But then again, its only recently that the full facts of the inquiry have come out, and I'm sorry but the whole thing absolutely REEKS. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

Much how I hate West Ham and hope they go down, this is not West Ham's fault - If they can get away with it fair play to them.

I am more concerned about the knock on effect if this goes to court.

 

[Easy 10]

So there you have it, easy 10 ....i trust you will now get off your bitterness train and chill out a bit and support the mighty hammers this afternoon as we're just too big a club to go down .

I do also believe that no team has ever been charged with this offence so no precident has ever been set in terms of punishment.

No other team has been charged with this offence because (thus far) no other team has been found to be in breach of it. I'm not saying it might not have gone on elsewhere, maybe it has, and if it is discovered then I'd expect the PL to come down hard on it - although now they've set a precedent of being exceptionally lenient, they're going to find it pretty tough imposing their own rules on ANYTHING now.

Guess you think thats ok though.

 

[Easy 10]

Much how I hate West Ham and hope they go down, this is not West Ham's fault - If they can get away with it fair play to them.

uuuhhh...how is this not West Hams FAULT exactly ?

 

[withdeanwombat]

West Ham the club,not West Ham the players and fans,cheated.


Park football admin at the Boleyn ground.Deduct the points won when the players concerned were in the team.

That should satisfy... er ....the majority.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

uuuhhh...how is this not West Hams FAULT exactly ?

How is it West Ham's fault the Premier league is shit?