Sheffield Uniteds Courtcase

[pasty]

I think the panel should overturn the decision and deduct points from West Ham. That gives Sheff Utd what they - a points deduction from West Ham, but make it only 2 points so they still go down!

History Lesson 1: Eight clubs have been docked points for ineligible players. Preston North End, Newport, Aldershot and Halifax Town had 1 point deducted, Stockport County, Bristol Rovers and Blackpool 2. Only Leyton Orient, in 1998, suffered a three-point penalty.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I think they should dock West Ham three points, let Sheff Utd crack open the champers, then deduct them 3 points tomorrow for the Kabba thing.

Hypocritical Northern Monkey Cheats.

 

[Rookie]

decision not until the end of the month according to SSN. Can only see that going one way no way the FA/Premier league/who ever are going to mess the fixtures around that late in the day. + Possible appeal by West Ham putting it back still further

 

[jevs]

History Lesson 1: Eight clubs have been docked points for ineligible players. .

............Tevez was always eligible to play. His contract was all above board and everything was approved by the FAPL. Even UEFA and FIFA have agreed with this.

:thud:

 

[unnameable]

If Sheffield United are reinstated to the Premiership, will Neil Warnock want his job back?

 

[Cian]

............Tevez was always eligible to play. His contract was all above board and everything was approved by the FAPL. Even UEFA and FIFA have agreed with this.

:thud:

And if this court case says that he wasn't, are you going to stop being so condescending about it?

 

[unnameable]

I haven't checked, but I read somewhere that the FA and the FL have made West Ham's and Sheff U's fixtures similar (in terms of geography on a given day, etc) in case the two clubs need to switch divisions at short notice.

I can see the decision going against West Ham. Chaos will follow. But the upshot can only be that the Hammers will have to play in the Championship next season.

If we were in West Ham's position, we would be nervous, for sure.

 

[sten_super]

While this is true as I understand it, I thought that the basis of the appeal from Sheffield Utd was that he wasn't elligible; that after the FA found out about the third party agreement they should have at that point said he wasn't allowed to play any more for West Ham? Or have I got myself confused?

 

[jevs]

While this is true as I understand it, I thought that the basis of the appeal from Sheffield Utd was that he wasn't elligible; that after the FA found out about the third party agreement they should have at that point said he wasn't allowed to play any more for West Ham? Or have I got myself confused?

The basis of the appeal is to discover and question how the PL panel came to its descision to fine WHU. Apparently, the PL stated that they took the WHU fans into considderation and also the timing of the case (if it had been earlier in the season, points probably would've been deducted).....and that ain't allowed.

However, we were fined a world record amount....and therefore punished. The punishment was well within the PL panels powers to dish out.

And if this court case says that he wasn't, are you going to stop being so condescending about it?

I'm not being condescending....i'm telling you the facts and not this constant bollocks that seems to be spouted off as a "slip of the tongue".

Tevez's contract was always legal and above board......the problem we had was that he was owned by a 3rd party (MSI investments) and that was not allowed under rule U18.....the very rule that Sheff utd have broken themselves with their transfer of Kabba to Watford last Jan !!!

 

[zego]

I had a look at seeing what the table would look like if the West Ham results were simply excluded for the whole season.

Adjusted Premiership Table 2006/07
after deleting West Ham, and their goals and points.


was chg  xWH  Team                pld  GD   pts
 1   →    1   Manchester United   37   54   83
 2   →    2   Chelsea             37   44   83
 3   →    3   Liverpool           37   32   68
 4   →    4   Arsenal             37   26   62
 5   →    5   Tottenham Hotspur   37    5   60
 6   →    6   Everton             37   17   55
 8   ↑1   7   Reading             37   12   55
 9   ↑1   8   Portsmouth          37    6   54
 7   ↓2   9   Bolton Wanderers    37   -3   53
11   ↑1  10   Aston Villa         37    3   49
10   ↓1  11   Blackburn Rovers    37   -4   46
12   →   12   Middlesbrough       37   -6   43
13   →   13   Newcastle United    37   -7   42
14   →   14   Manchester City     37  -12   42
16   ↑1  15   Fulham              37  -22   37
18   ↑2  16   Sheffield United    37  -21   35
17   →   17   Wigan Athletic      37  -23   35
19   ↑1  18   Charlton Athletic   37  -24   31
20   ↑1  19   Watford             37  -29   27

Sheff U and Wigan are still equal on points, but the changed goal difference is enough for them to swap places in the table.

Some other shifts in the middle of the table would have an effect on payout from the TV deal, but Reading still don't quite get up to 6th, and Europe.

 

[jevs]

From WHU's official shite.....

19/06/2007 19:15

The following is an official Club statement in relation to the Premier League arbitration hearing in London this week...


West Ham United are and remain a Barclays Premier League Football Club. There is no scope for this to be changed by the Premier League's arbitration panel and West Ham United's status can not be called into question in relation to next season.

West Ham United were not and are not a party to the arbitration and our standing as a Premier League Club is not in doubt as a result of the panel's hearing.

The Club are well advanced in preparing for the new season and are taking further steps to strengthen the playing squad over the summer. We will not be deflected in our goal of achieving success in the Premier League next season.

 

[pasty]

............Tevez was always eligible to play. His contract was all above board and everything was approved by the FAPL. Even UEFA and FIFA have agreed with this.

:thud:

All right, all right, keep yer knickers on

I was just quoting what was written in The Telegraph

 

[m20gull]

".

Tevez's contract was always legal and above board......the problem we had was that he was owned by a 3rd party (MSI investments) and that was not allowed under rule U18.....the very rule that Sheff utd have broken themselves with their transfer of Kabba to Watford last Jan !!!

The contract disclosed to the FAPL was above board. It was the concealed third-party contract that was not.

The FAPL commission says that "Messrs Brown, Aldridge and Duxbury were anxious to complete the registration of these players by the deadline of 31st August. They knew that the only means by which they could acquire them would be by entering into the third party contracts. Equally, they were aware that the FAPL, at the very least, may not -- and in all probability would not -- have approved of such contracts. They determined to keep their existence from the FAPL."

If the FAPL had not approved the contracts then West Ham might, and in all probability would have, arranged for different contracts. But under the documentation actually in force in August his signing breached the rules and if the FAPL had known about it he would have not have been allowed to play. The commission goes on to note that the FAPL could have terminated his registration because of the breach but "understandably" chose not to.

So signing a player on a contract that breaches the rules of the FAPL still leaves that player eligible to play for the club?

 

[Easy 10]

Tevez's contract was always legal and above board......the problem we had was that he was owned by a 3rd party (MSI investments) and that was not allowed under rule U18.

*sigh*

So it WASN'T "legal and above board" then was it ? It was AGAINST THE RULES. Something that West Sham knowingly covered up at the time, and then actually LIED about when they were questioned by the FAPL. Hence they acquired the services of a world class player who should not have played ONE MINUTE of the season in a West Sham shirt, but who went on to keep your grubby lot in the Premier League (thanks to the pathetic handling of this whole shambolic affair by the authorities).

But we've been over all this so many times, its clear you're not prepared to listen.

 

[clapham_gull]

One of the most telling comments regarding this came from Alex Ferguson.

He said that the players were offered to Manchester United, but they decided that due to the third party agreements they didn't want to touch them.

Bit difficult to prove now, but my general feeling is that if West Ham had wished for the third party agreements to be removed, the owners would have said "no deal" and moved onto the next club.. just like they did after Man United didn't want to know.

In that respect it is VERY HARD to argue that West Ham didn't gain an advantage by not disclosing the third party agreements.

Bit bloody late to remove them as the season draws in.

It stinks.

 

[Easy 10]

The contract disclosed to the FAPL was above board. It was the concealed third-party contract that was not.

The FAPL commission says that "Messrs Brown, Aldridge and Duxbury were anxious to complete the registration of these players by the deadline of 31st August. They knew that the only means by which they could acquire them would be by entering into the third party contracts. Equally, they were aware that the FAPL, at the very least, may not -- and in all probability would not -- have approved of such contracts. They determined to keep their existence from the FAPL."

If the FAPL had not approved the contracts then West Ham might, and in all probability would have, arranged for different contracts. But under the documentation actually in force in August his signing breached the rules and if the FAPL had known about it he would have not have been allowed to play. The commission goes on to note that the FAPL could have terminated his registration because of the breach but "understandably" chose not to.

So signing a player on a contract that breaches the rules of the FAPL still leaves that player eligible to play for the club?

Nice summing up.
And I think I can already predict Jevs answer to your question.

 

[Easy 10]

If West Ham had "originally played by the rules" - they wouldn't have got the players, so they have gained an advantage through hiding the detail of the contracts.

Precisely.

Hands up all those who think West Sham would have avoided relegation this year if Marlon Harewood instead of Tevez had played up-front for that run-in ?

 

[clapham_gull]

Precisely.

Hands up all those who think West Sham would have avoided relegation this year if Marlon Harewood instead of Tevez had played up-front for that run-in ?

Oh dear - I've edited my post now, perhaps you could use another insightful and telling quote

 

[Easy 10]

Oh dear - I've edited my post now, perhaps you could use another insightful and telling quote

You little TINKER

Your point still STANDS though, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bristolseagull]

He was their best player during the latter part of the season, however one player does not make a team.

Zamora did for us.