Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I've had a skiff over the transcript of the West Ham hearing, and just cannot believe how the FAPL have BOTTLED this whole decision. Here's the crux.
(ok, it was a slow afternoon and I was BORED)
On 8th September Mr Scudamore (FAPL) met Mr Aldridge (WHU's CEO) in order to seek clarification and confirmation of the position. Unsurprisingly, he wanted to know how the clubs had got these players so cheaply and whether or not there was any documentation of any sort in respect of these players which the FAPL had not seen. He received a categorical assurance that there was no such documentation and the players had come to the club as part of the takeover by Mr Joorabchian; that they had reached a gentlemen's agreement whereby the players would be released by the club for a modest fee if the takeover did not take place. Thus the FAPL, relying on these assurances, believed that no Rules had been breached. Both players were registered to play for West Ham.
What we believe to have occurred here is 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. In the case of the third element of the breach of Rule B13, namely the conversation between Mr Scudamore and Mr Aldridge, there is no dispute. There is no evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, to impinge upon the former's account of which he made a contemporaneous record. Thus, an officer of the club, its chief executive officer, told Mr Scudamore a direct lie, namely there was no documentation of whatever kind in respect of these players which the FAPL had not seen.
So here we have a serious breach of FAPL rules, and the clubs (then) Chief Executive deliberately and knowingly LYING to the FAPL in order to cover up that breach. As a result, West Ham have had the services of two Argentinian internationals to help in their battle against relegation. So how the HELL have the FAPL arrived at the following conclusions ?
Some clubs, here perhaps those who are locked in the relegation battle with West Ham, may be of the view that only a points deduction would be appropriate. Here, we have finally come to the view that a deduction of points would not be proportionate punishment. We have taken the following factors into account:
1. The club's pleas of guilty. (woo hoo)
2. The fact that the club is under new ownership and management. True it is that Mr Duxbury remains, but we are impressed by Mr Sturman's point that Mr Magnusson could have cynically dispensed with his services so as to reflect more favourably upon the club. (What ? Magnusson has stuck by Duxbury, the Legal & Commercial Director at WHU who knowingly and willingly DECEIVED the FAPL, and the FAPL bigwigs have somehow been "IMPRESSED" by this ? Am I missing something ?)
3. Had the club in time made disclosure of the third party contracts to the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into which would not have offended the Rules. Mr Mascherano
is playing football for Liverpool. He is doing so pursuant to a contract entirely different in form to these contracts, and which has been approved by the FAPL. We have no reason to suspect that the same could not have been achieved with West Ham in August 2006.(Irrelevent. The fact is, WHU chose NOT to disclose it in August for fear of not being able to strike up such an arrangement with the FAPL in time, and losing out on Tevez and Mascherano as a result. They could have gone about it the right way, but chose not to. The fact that Liverpool went about it the right way in January does not absolve WHU for lying their way through the initial transfer last August).
4. There has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party's fault (EH ?), the consequence is that a points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome, would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which would have consigned the club to certain relegation. (A just punishment is an appropriate punishment - its severity cannot be tempered according to whether the timing of it is more "convenient" or not. The whole idea of a punishment is that its not SUPPOSED to be "easy to bear", thats the POINT ffs).
5. Tevez has continued to play for the club after the discovery of these breaches. The FAPL had the power to have then terminated his registration. For understandable reasons, they did not. (What "understandable" reasons are they then ?? He should NOT have been playing !!) Had it not been for these proceedings, the club and the FAPL might have reached a similar situation to that pertaining to Liverpool and Mascherano. Tevez, we note, has played in more games post-24th January than before it. (See responses to point 3 - this is a complete irrelevence).
6. We have considered the position of the players and the fans. They are in no way to blame for this situation. Of course, if the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points. However, in this case, the fans and the players have been fighting against relegation. They have been doing so from between January and April. They have been so doing against the ever-present threat of a deduction of points. Those efforts and that loyalty would be to no avail were we to now, on what might be termed the eve of the end of the season, to deduct points. (Tell that to the players and fans of the clubs who have ALSO been battling against relegation - one of whom could well go down whilst WHU survive, having cheated the FAPL and every other playing club in it. As well as The Albion, of course).
7. It was Mr Igoe, thus the club, then under new ownership, who brought attention to these breaches. (But only after the FAPL contacted all the PL clubs in January asking about any arrangements with 3rd parties that might breach rule U18. They didn't volunteer this info - they were, to all intents and purposes, RUMBLED)
Thus we do not order any deduction of points
No - thus you OBSOLVE yourselves from taking the appropriate actions by giving a points deduction, you mealy-mouthed bunch of SHYSTERS
(ok, it was a slow afternoon and I was BORED)
On 8th September Mr Scudamore (FAPL) met Mr Aldridge (WHU's CEO) in order to seek clarification and confirmation of the position. Unsurprisingly, he wanted to know how the clubs had got these players so cheaply and whether or not there was any documentation of any sort in respect of these players which the FAPL had not seen. He received a categorical assurance that there was no such documentation and the players had come to the club as part of the takeover by Mr Joorabchian; that they had reached a gentlemen's agreement whereby the players would be released by the club for a modest fee if the takeover did not take place. Thus the FAPL, relying on these assurances, believed that no Rules had been breached. Both players were registered to play for West Ham.
What we believe to have occurred here is 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. In the case of the third element of the breach of Rule B13, namely the conversation between Mr Scudamore and Mr Aldridge, there is no dispute. There is no evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, to impinge upon the former's account of which he made a contemporaneous record. Thus, an officer of the club, its chief executive officer, told Mr Scudamore a direct lie, namely there was no documentation of whatever kind in respect of these players which the FAPL had not seen.
So here we have a serious breach of FAPL rules, and the clubs (then) Chief Executive deliberately and knowingly LYING to the FAPL in order to cover up that breach. As a result, West Ham have had the services of two Argentinian internationals to help in their battle against relegation. So how the HELL have the FAPL arrived at the following conclusions ?
Some clubs, here perhaps those who are locked in the relegation battle with West Ham, may be of the view that only a points deduction would be appropriate. Here, we have finally come to the view that a deduction of points would not be proportionate punishment. We have taken the following factors into account:
1. The club's pleas of guilty. (woo hoo)
2. The fact that the club is under new ownership and management. True it is that Mr Duxbury remains, but we are impressed by Mr Sturman's point that Mr Magnusson could have cynically dispensed with his services so as to reflect more favourably upon the club. (What ? Magnusson has stuck by Duxbury, the Legal & Commercial Director at WHU who knowingly and willingly DECEIVED the FAPL, and the FAPL bigwigs have somehow been "IMPRESSED" by this ? Am I missing something ?)
3. Had the club in time made disclosure of the third party contracts to the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into which would not have offended the Rules. Mr Mascherano
is playing football for Liverpool. He is doing so pursuant to a contract entirely different in form to these contracts, and which has been approved by the FAPL. We have no reason to suspect that the same could not have been achieved with West Ham in August 2006.(Irrelevent. The fact is, WHU chose NOT to disclose it in August for fear of not being able to strike up such an arrangement with the FAPL in time, and losing out on Tevez and Mascherano as a result. They could have gone about it the right way, but chose not to. The fact that Liverpool went about it the right way in January does not absolve WHU for lying their way through the initial transfer last August).
4. There has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party's fault (EH ?), the consequence is that a points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome, would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which would have consigned the club to certain relegation. (A just punishment is an appropriate punishment - its severity cannot be tempered according to whether the timing of it is more "convenient" or not. The whole idea of a punishment is that its not SUPPOSED to be "easy to bear", thats the POINT ffs).
5. Tevez has continued to play for the club after the discovery of these breaches. The FAPL had the power to have then terminated his registration. For understandable reasons, they did not. (What "understandable" reasons are they then ?? He should NOT have been playing !!) Had it not been for these proceedings, the club and the FAPL might have reached a similar situation to that pertaining to Liverpool and Mascherano. Tevez, we note, has played in more games post-24th January than before it. (See responses to point 3 - this is a complete irrelevence).
6. We have considered the position of the players and the fans. They are in no way to blame for this situation. Of course, if the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points. However, in this case, the fans and the players have been fighting against relegation. They have been doing so from between January and April. They have been so doing against the ever-present threat of a deduction of points. Those efforts and that loyalty would be to no avail were we to now, on what might be termed the eve of the end of the season, to deduct points. (Tell that to the players and fans of the clubs who have ALSO been battling against relegation - one of whom could well go down whilst WHU survive, having cheated the FAPL and every other playing club in it. As well as The Albion, of course).
7. It was Mr Igoe, thus the club, then under new ownership, who brought attention to these breaches. (But only after the FAPL contacted all the PL clubs in January asking about any arrangements with 3rd parties that might breach rule U18. They didn't volunteer this info - they were, to all intents and purposes, RUMBLED)
Thus we do not order any deduction of points
No - thus you OBSOLVE yourselves from taking the appropriate actions by giving a points deduction, you mealy-mouthed bunch of SHYSTERS
Last edited:
