West SHAM prove that cheats DO prosper

[Gwylan]

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.

I think that's right but I wouldn't bet on some (or all of the relegated clubs) suing WHU for civil damages.

But as to the nmain debate. Isn't the fact that West Ham lied to the PL about the nature of the Tevez/Mascherano contracts deemed more serious than the nature of the contracts themselves?

 

[saafend_seagull]

I think all the prem clubs should go on strike, as obviously a matter like this could affect them in the future. Then action would have to be taken, and justice made.

 

[Gritt23]

And West Ham its not the fault of the team,management,or the fans.

But why should the team, management and fans of SHEFFIELD UNITED be the ones to suffer?

 

[Gritt23]

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.

The football club is the legal entity and therefore it's the football club that receives any punishment. The shareholders, board member come and go, but that cannot absolve the legal entity from being punished for wrongdoings.


On the issue of the club being taken over ..... when companies are bought there is often an indemnity signed whereby any liability, law suits, etc that come out of the previous administration remain the liability of the previous owners. the debate becomes one of whether the new owners were made aware of this risk, or whether it should have been picked up in due diligence. From my knowledge of this case, I would suggest that the information was kept from Eggart, in which case he will have a very strong case for going back to Brown / Storer (whoever he actually bought the club from) and get re-imbursed the £5.5m fine from them.

Result would be, another £30m windfall for staying in the Premiership, no points deducted, and the club wouldn't even be missing the value of the fine.


How can ANYONE not understand why fans of clubs not directly involved in this find the whole situation abhorrent? It is license for any wealthy club to completely run roughshod over the rest of us. Do what you like because the authorities don't really want to punish you .... unless you are a lesser club of course. In which case, a points deduction is automatic.

 

[Simster]

The FA have bottled this and I agree with Brovian on the other thread - it's great that West Ham stayed up because now the FA's sheer incompetence can't just be swept under the carpet.

They should have fined them AND deducted points as soon as they found out. Now of course, they can't do that. If they deducted, say, 3 points, it would be an irrelevence. It's a mess, and the courts are going to have to decide this.

Maybe the only fair way to decide this, as things currently stand, is to play a two legged play-off between Sheff Utd and West Ham - the loser gies down. Can't see it happening though. Not with £30m at stake - and we couldn't have the FA admitting a PISS POOR mistake now, could we?

 

[pasty]

If they deducted, say, 3 points, it would be an irrelevence.

Hardly. A 3 point deduction would relegate West Ham on GD.

 

[Simster]

OK, for the sake of argument, assume I mean 2 points when I say 3.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The Premiership have got this one SO wrong. For many fans the ONLY exciting thing about the League is the relegation dogfight, but the football chiefs have even managed to f*** that up.

This whole situation stinks and completely marred an otherwise exciting final weekend of Prem matches.

The reasoning behind the decision not to dock West Hame points seemed to be basically flawed, so you wonder what factors were brought into play behind the scenes to swing it West Ham's way.

You also wonder what would have happened if a Newcastle, Man City or Everton had been in the relegation fight.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

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

Fair comment Easy. But to be fair whilst I disagree with the whole injustice...

This is the Premier League. Are you REALLY surprised? Its a closed shop and West Ham are a "big" team...certainly as far as gates and history go.

I lost interest in that league LONG LONG ago.

Suggest you do the same. Its a league of overpaid, overpampered, aliceband wearing pansies who moan whinge and formation dive.

every now and then a Reading or Wigan upset the big boys but its all to predictable now.

 

[Grizz]

The problem is the FA hates deducting points whenever there's another way around it. They got burnt with Alan Sugar taking them on when the financial irregularities where under a previous regime and he won in the courts.

I do think most cases should be taken individually. Take the Bury case, if they had been fined heavily by the FA then it might've been the move that pushed them over the edge into administration, instead the FA just threw them out of the cup. Also the Middlesbrough argument doesn't hold much water as the FA told them before the match that if they fielded a weakened side then they would deduct them points. Middlesbrough didn't think they would and lost that particular game of chicken with the FA.

 

[zego]

Sheffield United are leaving the Premiership because they didn't get enough points.

Why? Their players weren't good enough, either because they just weren't, or the manager wasn't good enough, or the Club didn't organise the finance to buy in better.

West Ham are staying in the Premiership because they did get enough points.

Why? Because their players were good enough, once a good manager was brought in, by new better Club owners.

If the financial arrangements gave such an unfair advantage that some say should warrant points deduction, why have all the other Premiership Clubs waited until the end of the season to seriously challenge the decision to fine instead? What difference to the illegality does it make if West Ham had gone down automatically? Surely just as wrong, or not, regardless. Only difference would be the sound of Warnock's forever bleating voice.

At least for the moment it wasn't the ref's fault, or the kids turning out for their competitor's opponents, or the grass too long/short, the sky too blue/grey, or ... ... ...

 

[Gritt23]

Sheffield United are leaving the Premiership because they didn't get enough points.

Why? Their players weren't good enough, either because they just weren't, or the manager wasn't good enough, or the Club didn't organise the finance to buy in better.

West Ham are staying in the Premiership because they did get enough points.

Why? Because their players were good enough, once a good manager was brought in, by new better Club owners.

*bangsheadagainstwall*

But had West Ham not used Tevez, because they hadn't signed him on a deal that is within the rules, Sheffield United would have had PLENTY of points.

Take out Tevez performances, and replace them with Harewood, and that would have seen West Ham down by miles.

Therefore, WHU only got enough points by stepping outside of the rules for virtually the whole season, lying about it until the 11th hour, and then finally holding their hands up. It simply CANNOT be right that behaviour like that sees you survive, whereas if they said on 31st August, "nope, we are unable to secure this deal on a contract that is within the rules of the Premier League" and let Tevez go off somewhere else, they would have gone down.

Even if the deal had been quashed at the hearing, and the signing not been allowed to go through until the transfer window had re-opened, I don't think West Ham would have got anywhere near the points to survive.

 

[zego]

They would have got the Argentinians regardless. Nobody got very excited whilst they didn't seem to fit in the team, and West Ham continued in a downward spiral.

Still nobody got hysterical until West Ham got enough points, on the pitch, to stay up.

Where would all the righteous indignation be focussed if West Ham had lost the last game as expected?

Just as illegal, if illegal, but a deafening silence, except maybe for hypercritical whisper of "not our problem".

 

[clapham_gull]

They would have got the Argentinians regardless. Nobody got very excited whilst they didn't seem to fit in the team, and West Ham continued in a downward spiral.

Still nobody got hysterical until West Ham got enough points, on the pitch, to stay up.

Where would all the righteous indignation be focussed if West Ham had lost the last game as expected?

Just as illegal, if illegal, but a deafening silence, except maybe for hypercritical whisper of "not our problem".

Nobody got excited because it wasn't clear something was a problem until the Liverpool transfer where all the contracts etc.. became known.

 

[Gritt23]

They would have got the Argentinians regardless.

Really?
Then why not get them in a way that is within the rules?

Truth is THAT was the only way they could sign them. Basically on a free, despite the players being worth 10's of millions, but in exchange for a "break clause" which meant the foreign owners were able to pay WHU £2m and £150k respectively to force WHU to release them again.

To sign them "properly" would have cost West Ham far too much money. They did it this way, because it was the ONLY way they could get them.

 

[bhaexpress]

You know there's a school of thought amongst some Hammers fans that the arrival of the Argentinians actually hampered them for a while. Pardew didn't know anything about their signings and that in itself caused a lot of disruption.

 

[Gritt23]

Still nobody got hysterical until West Ham got enough points, on the pitch, to stay up.

Where would all the righteous indignation be focussed if West Ham had lost the last game as expected?

Just as illegal, if illegal, but a deafening silence, except maybe for hypercritical whisper of "not our problem".

Not true at all, certainly not in my case. I think the Premier League has set a diabolical precedent here whereby they have said "break the rules as long as you can pay the financial penalty."

Whatever the outcome on Sunday, this is a decision the Premier League will live to regret if they do not find a way of reversing this, and actually issuing a points deduction.

Otherwise, it's a case of basically, do what you like Chelsea, because what fine could possibly deter YOU? Lie to us, withhold documents, run things exactly as you want. IF we discover what you are doing, just write us a fat cheque and all will be right with the World again.

It's scandalous. Where does the money go anyway, back into the coffers of the Premier League? Blimey, no wonder the Premier League don't want to actually discourage cheating, they could make a mint allowing clubs to sign players outside of the rules, and then just slapping them with a fine which is afraction of the benefit the club will get for remaining on the immoral gravy train.

 

[jevs]

Well....aparently, there is absolutely no way the premiership will backtrack over this and if it went to court, they'd laugh it out.

And....you have your former leg-end to thank.



http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/6529

The new chant at the Boleyn next season......"Steve Foster me lord, Steve Foster"

 

[Gritt23]

You know there's a school of thought amongst some Hammers fans that the arrival of the Argentinians actually hampered them for a while. Pardew didn't know anything about their signings and that in itself caused a lot of disruption.

And you point is?

Can't see how that gets away from the fact that they have pleaded guilty of breaking the rules, having an ineligible player all season, withholding documents, and lying about it.

The penalty shouldn't be dished out on the basis of how good or bad the player is. The fact that this guy has been so good for WHU that he has been the catalyst to keep them up, just demonstrates how much benefit you can receive from cheating.

But has this been Marlon Harewood, they should still be facing the same charges and the same penalty, which should be POINTS!

 

[Gritt23]

Well....aparently, there is absolutely no way the premiership will backtrack over this and if it went to court, they'd laugh it out.

And....you have your former leg-end to thank.



http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/6529

The new chant at the Boleyn next season......"Steve Foster me lord, Steve Foster"

Don't want to worry you, but how about Sir Alan Sugar getting his points deduction reversed by taking it to the High Court?

Defence and prosecution will always be claiming different precedents.