West SHAM prove that cheats DO prosper

[clapham_gull]

Not a shock after last year

Why ?

 

[Arthur]

Indelible proof that cheats do indeed prosper in the Premiership. Thanks to the self-interest, ineptitude and outright COWARDICE of the Premier League, West Sham will enjoy another season amongst the elite.

Directors such as Duxbury, who bartered and lied their way to the illegal deal to sign Tevez, will be able to bury their snouts in the Premiership trough for another year, and will no doubt be on a sumptuous bonus for staying up. Even though Tevez will go for practically nothing in the summer, he is without a doubt the BEST bit of business West Sham have ever done in their entire history - the guy has made them absolutely millions.

Course all the smilies will be out in force at this from the West Sham fans, and they'll be (justifiably) delighted to have stayed up this year. But it doesn't alter the FACT that their club should have been dead and buried by now, and they will compete in the Premiership next season not through deserving it, but by default.

Just another tawdry, grubby little footnote on a game I am rapidly falling out of love with.

And you care why?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Why ?

West Ham wouldnt let us postpone the last game of the season

 

[clapham_gull]

West Ham wouldnt let us postpone the last game of the season

Oh of course

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Oh of course

Bad blood between the two clubs, funny we enjoyed dumping our shit players there.

 

[withdeanwombat]

It will end up in court

Yep.

And the winners are.............Lawyers F.C.

 

[Easy 10]

Re: Re: West SHAM prove that cheats DO prosper

And you care why?

I dunno, just something to do with the notion of fair play, of cheats not benefitting from their underhand dealings at the expense of others, of playing by the rules, not seeking an advantage by lying and cheating, just that kind of thing.

Sorry if you find that DULL

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I am pleased for Zamora 6 goals in the last 9 gams and joint 9th top scorer in the premier with 11 is a great season and he made quite a few assists for Tevez in those final 9 games as well and the West Ham fans still think he is shit

 

[bhanutz]

I am pleased for Zamora 6 goals in the last 9 gams and joint 9th top scorer in the premier with 11 is a great season and he made quite a few assists for Tevez in those final 9 games as well and the West Ham fans still think he is shit

They think he is that shit that he came second in the fans player of the season awards!

 

[Silent Bob]

Just another tawdry, grubby little footnote on a game I am rapidly falling out of love with.

Why? Haven't dodgy dealings ALWAYS gone on in football, directors ALWAYS made money out of football clubs?

 

[Nemesis]

Glad Warnocks gone down though

More delighted that the 'coca cola twat' has tasted another relegation. Sadly, it means Warnock suffers too..

 

[e77]

The question everyone should be asking is why the FA and Premier League let the two of them play originally and took six months to rule against the transfer.

 

[Albion Rob]

I don't understand this argument that because the players were bought under a different regime, the current board shouldn't be punished.

They should have made sure of all the whys are wherefores before parting with god knows how many millions of pounds to buy the club. It's not like they bought it with spare change, is it?

If I were to buy a house and only got a superficial survey done then found out there was something wrong which I had neglected to look in to, it would be tough shit and I'd have to face the consequences (probably shelling out to replace something).

How what West Ham did (effectively cheating) is considered more favourable to what Middlesbrough did in 1997 (fail to play a game because they had no players) is beyond me.

 

[Rangdo]

I don't understand this argument that because the players were bought under a different regime, the current board shouldn't be punished.

It's because the people who argue this are morons.

The previous management made the decisions on behalf of the club and the club has to deal with the consequences.

If you could play the "previous regime" card then we should get the Goldstone back as it was the previous board that sold it not this one

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

If you play ineligible players in kids football, Parks Football or County League football you have points deducted,

If this had been Wigan or Sheffield UTd then they WOULD have had points deducted.

Most of the WHU fans I know are still shocked they didn't have points deducted.

Shame that their 'Great Escape' won't get the recognition it actually deserves because of the Tevez affair.

 

[clapham_gull]

If you play ineligible players in kids football, Parks Football or County League football you have points deducted,

If this had been Wigan or Sheffield UTd then they WOULD have had points deducted.

Most of the WHU fans I know are still shocked they didn't have points deducted.

Shame that their 'Great Escape' won't get the recognition it actually deserves because of the Tevez affair.

I wouldn't start that.. West Ham fans will say he was eligible, in that he was "registered correctly".

Even Andy Gray agrees on Sky, so that must be be right.

The fact that the clauses in the contracts were unenforcable under UK law and they weren't submitted to the Premiership doesn't mean a jot apparently.

If you fill in some paperwork incorrectly or forget to send it, that's a WORSE offence that deciding not to send it in at all.

The former means you get a points deducted or thrown out of a competition.

The latter means you simply get a fine.

Incidently do you know what Bury were thrown out the cup for ?

The player Stephen Turnbull was on loan was Hartlepool. Hartlepool had agreed for him to play in the cup, but Bury forgot to register that with the FA (in the form of paperwork)

 

[Gotsmanov]

I'm a bit unsure about the fine detail of actual 'rule' so excuse any ignorance if i've missed a crucial point.

My understanding is that West Ham signed a player who was 'owned' by TWO other entities, neither of which are Premiership teams. One is a South American team, the other is a third party venture-capital outfit, not a football club. Cristiano Ronaldo was owned under similar circumstances in Portugal (a hegde fund), and such practice is commonplace in South America where there is less money in the game.

I do understand that West Ham signed a player against this tri-partate agreement rule of the english Premier League, and therefore sought to gain an advantage because no other prem team believed they could sign a player under such circumstances. Hence they got Tevez, and no one else did.

However, neither of these two outfits (Corinthians, I believe, and the venture capital firm) can directly affect the outcome of a Premiership match in favour of West Ham, or against West Ham and in the favour of another Premiership outfit. Tevez can, and he's a player, and has the right to. The point here is that the third-party is not another Premiership team who can gain. If the third entity of the tri-partate agreement is a non-football entity, then how does that differ from a standard loan signing with just two clubs?

We do have the rules of the Premier League, but since this tri-partate practice is commonplace in leagues around the world, trying to refer the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport would most likely be fruitless. Some Premier League rules have indeed been broken, but, my point is, how valid is this particular rule? It exists elsewhere with FIFA's full knowledge.

What we do have, right now in the Premiership, are 2 matters whereby Premiership results can be influenced directly by those within the game, within the same league, and are completely legal:
(a) agents' abilities to destabilise players and clubs to the detriment of one team and to the benefit of ANOTHER Prem team in the same league.

(b) the possibility of Premiership teams - such as Man Utd - owning several Premiership-quality goalkeepers, who play week-in week-out on loan for other clubs in the Premiership, and then have to be dropped when their loan team face Man Utd. The subsequent goalkeeper who is called up to replace the loan Man U goalkeeper effectively hasn't played all season, only comes in twice a season to face Man Utd, has little first-team experience and cohesion with the defenders, and Man Utd effectively get a vastly weakened defence to play against. Ben Foster and Tim Howard spring to mind, effectively destabilising the opposition for 4 games and hence 12 points. There's nothing stopping Man Utd owning and loaning out even more goalkeepers. Surely that's a far more direct and currently legal way of influencing Premiership results and more serious than two third-party non-premiership outfits with no ability to affect and influence Premiership results owning a player such as Tevez.

 

[Easy 10]

Gotmanov - you correctly state the fact that although Tevez was owned by a 3rd party when West Ham signed him, it does not mean that the 3rd party can actually directly influence the outcome of a Premiership match through Tevez

HOWEVER

Rule U18 states that : "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."

So by entering into a contract with a 3rd party which states that Tevez's contract could be terminated by that 3rd party with a £2m payment to West Ham, they have clearly breached that rule, because that 3rd party COULD materially influence that clubs policies. They also breached rule B13, which states:

"In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith."

When Tevez and Mascherano were registered as players, West Ham failed to disclose that they had entered into an agreement with third party companies. And they LIED about it when questioned. So they broke both rules, and then pleaded guilty when the new regime were rumbled when they got asked again in January.

Rules are rules - the rest of the Premiership have abided by them, West Ham have not. And they decieved the Premier League whwn they were directly questioned on it shortly after the signings were made. Now if THATS not worthy of a points deduction, I dunno what is.

The points you raise on the Howard loan between Man U and Everton are also spot on though, and worthy of an investigation, because that DID directly influence the outcome of a Premiership match (and Scudamore f***ing KNEW about it !)

 

[BensGrandad]

Gotmanov - you correctly state the fact that although Tevez was owned by a 3rd party when West Ham signed him, it does not mean that the 3rd party can actually directly influence the outcome of a Premiership match through Tevez

HOWEVER

Rule U18 states that : "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."

So by entering into a contract with a 3rd party which states that Tevez's contract could be terminated by that 3rd party with a £2m payment to West Ham, they have clearly breached that rule, because that 3rd party COULD materially influence that clubs policies. They also breached rule B13, which states:

"In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith."

When Tevez and Mascherano were registered as players, West Ham failed to disclose that they had entered into an agreement with third party companies. And they LIED about it when questioned. So they broke both rules, and then pleaded guilty when the new regime were rumbled when they got asked again in January.

Rules are rules - the rest of the Premiership have abided by them, West Ham have not. And they decieved the Premier League whwn they were directly questioned on it shortly after the signings were made. Now if THATS not worthy of a points deduction, I dunno what is.

The points you raise on the Howard loan between Man U and Everton are also spot on though, and worthy of an investigation, because that DID directly influence the outcome of a Premiership match (and Scudamore f***ing KNEW about it !)

What you are saying is perfectly correct but The Premier League or possibly the FA are the only people that can make a decision on this matter. The Courts of Law in this country cannot and will not enter into the discussion. unless it is suggested that West Ham have broken either a criminal or civil law and they have done neither. They have broken a Premier League rule for which the Premier League are accountable. No court in this land has the power to overturn their decision, or would wish to.

 

[SussexSpur]

funny we enjoyed dumping our shit [...] there.