…And Justice for ALL?
Read more: Aspley Red, Two Footed Tackle
They may have lost some battles along the way, but by God, haven’t they just won the war? The East End has a storied history of villainy and turpitude, and as the dust settles on the Carlos Tevez fiasco, Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson must be writing hush cheques with the zeal of a young Ronnie Kray. As Sheffield United agreed to a sliver of the compensation they sought through the High Courts, West Ham have inked a rotten footnote into the history of top flight football in this country; namely, that there is now a cash price on a Premier League place.
When you look back across the absurd events of the past two years, it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that Trevor Brooking has been slipping things into people’s tea at Soho Square. Such are the dizzying levels of ignorance, incompetence and improvisation we’ve witnessed. Not least from Richard Scudamore, whose absolute dereliction of duty in the first place set this dreadful wheel turning. This is the man who terminally dallied over one of the most cut and dried disciplinary cases in modern footballing times. The man who actually believed that Media Sports Investment – the acknowledged owners of Carlos Tevez – would tear up a £20m business agreement, just so West Ham United could stay up. I mean, if West Ham had a mum – a gap-toothed Hackney market trader no doubt, who some 120 years ago heaved her bloodied runt onto the podium of footballing invulnerability – then even she would have struggled to swallow that one.
It’s been done to death, but let’s just get this clear, one last time; West Ham United acquired and played a footballer who was not, in accordance with Premier League rules B13 and U18, entitled to represent them. And then, having admitted as much, were found to have continued playing him under the very terms they’d acknowledged as improper. BY FIELDING CAROS TEVEZ, WEST HAM UNITED CHEATED. The extent of his contribution to West Ham’s survival, the seven goals he scored in their run-in, were immaterial: he could have been a goalkeeper, a winger, or a full-back. The point is, he wasn’t aloud to play for them, and as poor as Sheffield United were that season, however insistently they’ve since alchemized their failures into the shape of an Argentinean footballer, they were at least rubbish with legally registered players. When the Tevez faux pas was brought to light, West Ham should have been subjected – immediately – to the deduction of points that the FAPL’s code of conduct decrees. West Ham lied. West Ham cheated. Then West Ham lied and cheated again. For all the talk of what they would have done with and without Carlos Tevez, let’s just suspend the guesswork and imponderables that have swollen this very simple idea into an abject, touring carnival. West Ham committed a crime that, by the Premier League’s own statutes, within the grain of disciplinary action to date, was punishable with a points deduction. That would have seen West Ham relegated. On the merits of legality, Sheffield United would have survived.
But no, their misdeeds were massaged into a piffling fine, and a posthumous damages settlement. Some fantastically bleak precedents have been set as a result. Football now stands astride a new dawn of litigious hysteria, where a sport’s governing body is no longer its God, and the High Courts are the only meaningful recourse for the wronged and put-upon. Also, we now know that the current market price of a Premier League place is in the region of £25m, in easy-pay instalments if necessary. And when you can afford to drop a combined £20m on Kieron Dyer, Freddie Ljunberg, Louis Boa-Morte, Nigel Quashie and Callum Davenport, that figure’s a the drop in the ocean of footballing insanity.
These reparations aren’t even a public acknowledgement of guilt, as West Ham insist – still – on hammering the drum of mawkish blamelessness. They continue to plead poverty, but lads, you’ve got away with it. Good an’ proper. It weren’t exactly the stretched leather glove on O.J’s hand. Christ, Ronnie Biggs never had it this good, lathering himself in Factor 15 on the beaches of Rio.
Truly this was a settlement, in the fattest, most attritional sense of the word. Gudmundsson has been given three months to sell the club by the creditors of Hansa, West Ham’s financially-ailing creditors, and knew full well that the settlement figure would be necessarily absorbed into the Hammers’ retail price. So it’s not penitence, it’s appeasement; damage limitation tarted up as flimsy altruism. Whoever they may be, West Ham’s new owners will now essentially be £15m better off, thanks to some poor sods in Iceland. But in terms of West Ham’s ongoing ability to invest in players, and consolidate their ill-gained Premiership status, it amounts to the square root of dick all.
If you are considered part of the Premier League cognoscenti, different laws apply. Not for West Ham the punishments meted out in the forgettable backwaters of Bury, Wimbledon and the like, for similar crimes. The Football League can haul Luton Town to the very blink of oblivion, but the self-anointed Academy of Football goes, predictably, untouched. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know, and what they can prove (or rather, ignore).
So we have it. As the curtain tumbles down on this pantomime of miscreancy, let’s have a big round of applause for its participants. West Ham, who would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky rules. Richard Scudamore, the milkiest of chocolate tea-pots. And Sheffield United, too, offering their silence for a pittance… and their chairman, Kevin McCabe, for the expedient waffle that dutifully flowed in West Ham’s direction last week. A filthy miscarriage of protocol, eventually chalked up as an overhead on West Ham’s balance sheet. As John Lydon once said, ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?
Click on the image for our latest two footed tackle… ouch!
Comments
Leave a reply
© All content copyright BallsMania 2009 unless otherwise stated.
Brian Clough & brown paper bags full of cash.
“a rotten footnote into the history of top flight football in this country”
Hypocrite.
West Ham United acquired and played a footballer who was not, in accordance with Premier League rules B13 and U18, entitled to represent them. And then, having admitted as much, were found to have continued playing him under the very terms they’d acknowledged as improper – WRONG (Tevez was correctly registered and West Ham were perfectly within their rights to play him ….not just according to the FAPL but also UEFA and FIFA)
The point is, he wasn’t aloud to play for them – WRONG AGAIN plus awful spelling
When the Tevez faux pas was brought to light, West Ham should have been subjected – immediately – to the deduction of points that the FAPL’s code of conduct decrees. WRONG ….. AGAIN …. the FAPL code of conduct does not decree anything of the sort and there was no precedent for 3rd party contract clauses that are not used.
You forget to mention Steve Kabba …. who was not allowed (correct spelling) to play against Sheff Utd, for his new club Watford, against them (Sheff utd won 1-0). The point is this 3rd party influence clause was never used with regards to Tevez’s contract. Sheff Utd , however, had a “genmtlemen’s agreement” with Watford (which was admitted to on their website)which stated he could not play as conditions of his January transfer.
One other thing:
West Ham average points gained per game in that season WITHOUT Tevez = 1.5
West Ham average points gained per game in that season WITH Tevez = 1.02
Sheffield United were relegated because they were s*it and they still are …… at least you got one thing right !!!!
“I mean, if West Ham had a mum – a gap-toothed Hackney market trader no doubt, who some 120 years ago heaved her bloodied runt onto the podium of footballing invulnerability – then even she would have struggled to swallow that one.”
Most people from hackney you will find are followers of the L’Arsenal persuasion …..
D- ………… and I’m being generous
Great article!
Mr. Ballsmania,
Thanks for an interesting read. Sadly though, I there are a number of statements in your article
that need contending. I’ll put some information at the bottom of the reply which gives you (admittedly long) insight into the reasons why I think you’ve got some things wrong. The points I make vrs. your statements are backed up below.
You state that the PL’s rules call for a deduction of points. No they don’t. West Ham
were never charged with fielding an illegible player, which sadly, large tracts of the media and SU have persisted in chanting. They have used the ‘if we say it enough, people’ll eventually believe it. They’ve been proved correct on this one. Maybe then, if I state and continue to state,that my John Thomas is the most phenomenal member in the history of the universe, the ladies will eventually believe it. Or maybe not.
You mention the ‘piffling’ fine. Not only have we had to pay out a £5.5m (a world record I believe) fine, but now a further ‘fine’ has occurred.
Next is the litigious hysteria this could cause. Yep, thanks SU. West Ham won all legal challenges. Then, however, a compulsory arbitration comes along to which WH have no appeal. SU lost initially but kept going till a judge, who believes that 1 man can be deemed to have secured a set number of points, rules for SU. Hoorah ! Now we can safetly say that West Ham DID win the world cup in ‘66. Not only did we provide the goalscorers but also the captain. Three ‘influences’ on the game over the 1 of tevez. QED.
Hammering down of mawkish blamlessness. I Like the phrase. I don’t believe West Ham have ever stated they weren’t to blame for this. It was the new owners who brought the ‘offending’ clause to the PL’s attention.
You state West Ham ‘have got away with it. Well, i’d disagree. The calls for ‘justice’ and the like don’t seem to have been evenly spread to include West Ham. As mentioned above WH won the legal challanges but were denied appeal against a , lets face it, absured ruling that 1 man = 3 points.
Bury, Wimbledon, Luton etc are mentioned. This is again trying to measure apples with pears in my view. Tevez was not inelligable. WH have not gone into administration. How are these linked in any way ? If we want to look at the 3rd party influence, we need to look at precedents set by teh loaning of PL players to other PL teams. This is where the ‘reality’ of 3rd party influence comes home. Howard to Everton. Can’t play against MU so some reserve goalie plays. Unfortunately the keeper decides to smear vaseline on his gloves before kick off and MU win. Surely then, using the logic applied by the learned gentlemen in his arbitration ruling, this is the 3 points that secured MU the title. Also, Kabba to Watford. SU & Watford made statements on their websites revealing that Kabba wouldn’t be playing due to a ‘gentlemens agreement’. Oral cuddles anyone ?
I’d like to refer you to http://www.kumb.com/forum
if you want to get more info. It’s a long read but worth it :)
Heres the info I mentioned
15 May 2007
Dear Chairman / Chief Executive
Independent Disciplinary Commission Decision relating to West Ham United
We write as promised yesterday in order to lay out what we believe to be the most pertinent facts in this matter, primarily to ensure that all Clubs have more clarity around what is clearly a complex matter.
The Charges
West Ham United were charged under Rule B13 which requires each Club to behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith and also with a breach of Rule U18 reproduced here in full: “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 teams in League Matches or in any of the competitions set out in Rule E10.”
At no point were West Ham United charged with playing an ineligible player – both Tevez and Mascherano were registered on 31 August. All the required documentation was received by the Premier League and the usual confirmations received and sent – a process you are all very familiar with. Registration is definitive as to the status of the player. At no time has Mr Tevez’s registration been revoked or terminated and at all times he has been eligible to play for West Ham.
This was the first time that Rule U18 had ever been applied and tested in this way. The arguments around the intention and application of the Rule as it relates to players’ contracts are, at the least, complex and contentious. The Board acted on its objective interpretation of both the Rules and the potential breach.
The Case
Central to the case are the “third party contracts” entered into by West Ham United and MSI/JSI. These did not come to light until West Ham sent them to the Premier League on 24 January 2007.
It is only at that point that the Board had prima facie evidence that a breach of rules had taken place. Even having submitted them West Ham United continued to argue that these agreements did not influence its policies or performance of the team and therefore were not in breach of Rule U18. The timing of subsequent events was then driven by procedures as laid down in our Rule book – giving all parties reasonable time to respond – a practice that all Clubs will be familiar with.
Much speculation exists as to why the Board did not identify these breaches in September 2006. We made all reasonable attempts to establish if any such agreements existed and the facts have now been established that we were deceived. The League can only function if good faith exists between Clubs and again all of you who have regular dealings with the League will recognise and agree that this is the way it works. More detail is provided in the Independent Commission’s judgement which is attached for your reference in a clearer, more legible form. (Attachment 1)
The Independent Commission
This was appointed from the Panel and convened strictly in accordance with the Rules as agreed by all Member Clubs.
Its chair, Simon Bourne-Arton QC, acted very promptly and properly, laying out directions for the hearing in the shortest possible timescale. This involved, amongst other things, an exchange of witness statements and skeleton arguments from both sides.
The Board insisted on the earliest possible hearing date, conscious that time must be available to hear any appeal prior to the 31 May AGM when the 2007/8 League officially forms. The dates for the hearing set by the Independent Commission Chairman were fixed at the only possible time allowing for all these considerations.
The fixture list (as it sometimes can) conspired to match Wigan v West Ham United on the day after – clearly not ideal but unavoidable. For the above reasons, neither the hearing nor the judgement was nor should have been delayed for any artificial reasons.
The Hearing
On the morning of the hearing West Ham United pleaded guilty to both charges. They then entered a plea in mitigation. The Premier League’s counsel in response to the matter of sanction told the Commission that it considered it to be a most serious offence, reminding them that it had the full range of sanctions available to it under the Rules (Section R).
The Judgement
We are sure you have all read this document and in the light of subsequent events we would ask that you do so again. Whilst those aggrieved by it have concentrated on certain phrases and elements, it contains or generates some very relevant facts:
• The Commission considered it no part of their remit to determine whether third party contracts are in the interests of football generally.
• However, they did lay out some rationale as to why they saw force in the arguments that such agreements could be construed as to be in breach of Rule U18 – in summary, because certain clauses in them were inconsistent with clauses in the Standard Players Contract. In any event, West Ham United had admitted they were in breach.
• The judgement also made comments about the Commission’s view of the enforceability of the third party contracts in question. West Ham United argued that they were not enforceable, the Commission was minded to agree, but West Ham United could not use this as a defence as they had acted as if they were enforceable in the first place.
The Sanction
You will all have formed a view about the sanction. The terms of the judgement made it clear that the Independent Commission considered very seriously the possibility of points deduction. You are well aware by now that our Rules provide no tariff of sanctions for particular offences. In the end, having had the benefit of reading all the witness statements and skeleton arguments; having listened to the plea in mitigation and the Premier League counsel’s response on sanction, they – and only they – decided on fines: £2.5m for breach of Rule U18, £3m for breach of Rule B13.
The media, and of course those aggrieved by the decision, have analysed the seven reasons given by the Independent Commission for not deducting points and concentrated on those that to them seem the least convincing. However, there are others that have a less convenient truth, particularly the one that says “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”. We will refer back to this statement later.
In summary, the Independent Commission carried its work out fully in accordance with our Rules, having adopted practices entirely consistent with formal judicial proceedings. In reaching their decision the Independent Commission clearly considered the matter very carefully and did not deliver an irrational or extreme judgement and delivered the sanction that only they (having considered the matter fully and in light of copious evidence) deemed to be proportionate and appropriate.
Appeal
West Ham United as Respondents were the only party entitled to appeal. This is a deliberate construct of our Rules. Any Club that has faced a properly convened Independent Commission having had “their day in court” cannot be “re-tried” by the Board or group of aggrieved Clubs.
This has to be right as otherwise the Board could be subject to intense lobbying from some. Also, the League could not function if other Clubs could effectively intervene in an attempt to overturn decisions not to their liking – not those of the Board – those of an Independent Commission convened in strict accordance with the Rules previously agreed by all Clubs.
We also attach advice on the matter of appeal received from our own Legal Working Party. (Attachment 2)
Actions of the Board since 26 April 2007
We sense that this is where much of the concern even amongst a wider group of Clubs exists and so we will expand upon our actions since the hearing.
The Independent Commission declared that the registration of Carlos Tevez could be terminated by the FAPL.
The FAPL Board convened later that day to consider this matter. The Board minutes from this meeting are attached for your reference. (Attachment 3)
The Board was fully aware of the need to proceed very carefully and precisely, seeking constant advice from DLA Piper (our external lawyers) at all times.
It must be restated that this registration had been in place in full accordance with the requirements of our Rules relating to player registrations since 31 August 2006.
Having reached its decision the Board conveyed this to officials of West Ham United As contained in our note to you all of 8 May, the Premier League made it very clear to West Ham that unless it could be satisfied that all trace of any third party ability to influence West Ham’s policies or the performance of its team was removed, Mr Tevez’s registration would be terminated.
We would not normally disclose – and neither would you want us to – confidential information contained in Club contracts. However, we sense the need to reassure Clubs and so have gone further than we might in these unusual circumstances.
Prior to the deadline set of noon on 28 April, the Premier League Board received the following documents:
i) A letter from West Ham United sent to Carlos Tevez, MSI and JSI terminating the private agreement between them dated 30 August 2006 and notifying those parties that the private agreement shall cease to have any further force or effect.
ii) A letter from the legal representatives of MSI and JSI acknowledging receipt of the above letter.
iii) A letter confirming that the above letter had been served on Carlos Tevez personally.
The Board was fully conscious that it had to ensure that West Ham United could not continue to, or repeat a, breach of Rule U18.
In order to protect the League and all Clubs the Board sought additional undertakings from West Ham United. Again, these were in writing and commit West Ham United to the following:
1. copy the Premier League in on all correspondence (including any proceedings served) between the Club and any of Tevez, MSI and JSI (or any of their respective representatives or advisers) in relation to Tevez;
2. continue to contend that the Private Agreement is invalid and unenforceable and, from the Club’s perspective, terminated, and the Club will not perform in accordance with it; and
3. not act in a manner which is inconsistent with the confirmation given at paragraph 2 above and, for the avoidance of doubt, no settlement or resolution (or discussions or negotiations leading up to any such settlement or resolution) will include any concession by West Ham that the Private Agreement was valid and enforceable.
In summary, West Ham United, having considered all the alternatives, chose to terminate the offending third party agreement. The Board only regulates West Ham United – not third parties – and it has secured written undertakings that West Ham United can only act in a way that is consistent with its having terminated the offending agreement.
It is only because of these written undertakings that Tevez’s registration was not terminated. If the Board suspects or has evidence that these undertakings are false or have been breached, then it will take all necessary steps to enforce Premier League Rules.
In making these undertakings to the Premier League it could be that West Ham United has exposed itself to further legal challenge from third parties who may contest the legality of that termination. That is a matter for them and them alone as, again, we have no jurisdiction over third parties.
Given the complexities around this, we would ask you to step back from the detail and consider the matter in more general terms:
1. Tevez has been properly registered to play for West Ham United since 31 August 2006. The Board, under our Rules, is charged with the authority to determine this.
2. He continues to be registered with West Ham United.
3. This is a case without precedent and certainly cannot be compared with Clubs who have played unregistered players or players ineligible through suspension.
4. On 26 April West Ham United admitted to breaches of Rules B13 and U18 – for which they have been fined in accordance with our Rules.
5. The offending third party agreement has been terminated by West Ham United and therefore they are not continuing to be in breach.
On a wider basis:
1. Under cross-examination (though the hearing did not proceed) the Premier League witnesses would have had to state that in all probability had West Ham United submitted the third party agreement in August 2006, the Premier League would have highlighted the offending clauses and worked with the Club in an attempt to shape the agreement into compliance with the Rules. This is a common occurrence all Clubs are aware of as the League seeks generally to help Clubs register players not prevent them. This has happened in all previous known cases of this nature.
2. Third party agreements exist in many varied forms throughout football – banking or finance agreements, players’ commercial arrangements, agency or representative agreements – many of which do not fall under the Premier League’s jurisdiction and do not contravene our Rules. The Premier League applies the same objective tests to any agreements – an interpretation of U18 as determined by the Board acting in the utmost good faith at all times.
3. We are the only league to our knowledge that has such a Rule – neither the Football League, FA nor FIFA have one.
Ultimately the proper functioning of this League only operates with trust between Member Clubs, the Board and officials. This case demonstrates the difficulties we run into if this is not adhered to. We can absolutely assure you that the Board has acted in good faith at all times – implementing Premier League Rules using judgement, impartiality and consistency.
We believe we were right to bring the charges (even though we know some Clubs do not actually agree that these third party agreements breach Rule U18).
We believe the Independent Commission was properly convened, its judgement was rational and the sanction was one that it was entitled to make within its powers (even though some clearly do not agree with it).
We also consider Tevez was at all times registered to play for West Ham United and that they are bound to act in a manner that is consistent with them having terminated the offensive third party agreement.
These three elements are within our jurisdiction and we have acted in accordance with the Rules operating for the purposes of the 2006/7 season. We have no wider remit – and neither should we.
As you are well aware, we will have the chance to debate the wider implications of this at our Summer Meeting in two weeks’ time. The Board will be giving careful consideration – as we are sure all Clubs will – to how we might learn lessons from this situation to protect the future interests of the League and all its Member Clubs. Any resulting changes to the Rules will be approved by Clubs in the usual manner.
To reassure you further, we attach a letter from our legal advisers confirming that the contents of this letter are entirely consistent with the advice they have been giving the League throughout this matter. (Attachment 4)
As always, we appreciate your consideration and support and will be pleased to answer any follow-up questions you may have.
We really do look forward to seeing Member Clubs at the Summer Meeting.
Kind regards,
Richard Scudamore Sir David Richards
Chief Executive Chairman”
What an utterly stupid article from a gobshite Forest fan. To be honest I can’t be asked to go over it correcting the innacuracies, be a waste of time anyway…..the guy’s got a tabloid brain.
Finally a sensible article.
Tevez would not have been allowed to be registered if West Ham had mentioned the 3rd party agreement. They were asked about it by the PL on transfer deadline day, they lied. After the first arbitration they were then told to remove the agreement so he could play the final 3 matches, they said that they had, but again they lied. Now they have been caught. Simple.
Only thing now is for the new Premier/FA investigation to finally deduct the points that should have originally been deducted.
That’ll be the same “Knees Up Mother Brown” where a member wishes Mr McCabe dead, where the level of rapier-sharp wit reaches its zenith with renaming Mr McCabe “McC***” and where your keyboard warriors claim to be looking forward to meeting SUFC for a bit of violence. Sad to say, the good name of WHU died with Moore, Lyall and Greenwood, men of quality and dignity who must be spinning in their graves at the shabby depths a once-decent club has now plumbed. Sad to say, too, that you won’t be remembered for any of the good men of your past, but for the Icelandic gamblers who showed utter contempt for the game’s laws, Scott Duxbury whose economy with the truth knows no bounds, and a horde of whining, whingeing, squealing fans who think the only thing WHU did wrong was to be found out. And found out you were, big-style: the PL are wetting their collective pants because they know they should dock you points but daren’t, while you’ve until July to find a buyer in the depths of a recession or be docked 15 points for going into administration. No wonder you’re so fidgety.
And P.S., Carl: “Hackney” is a proper noun and therefore should have a capital letter.
So, any plans to re-write the article after reading the letter written by someone who actually knows the facts?
So was he “propery registered”? Judge for yourself.
I have attached an extract from the FAPL Arbitration report from 3 July 2007, heard by Sir Philip Otton. The FAPL spells out what happened:
“Prior to the execution of the third party agreements WHU had sought advice from the FAPL as to whether it would be acceptable to grant a third party the right to terminate a player’s contract. They were told that it was not.
On 31 August 2006 West Ham filed documentation with the FAPL relating to the proposed registration of Tevez and Mascherano with the Club, which made no mention of any third party arrangements. The Club did not disclose to the FAPL the existence of the Tevez Agreement or Mascherano Agreement.
On 1 September 2006, the then Legal and Commercial Director of WHU ( Mr Scott Duxbury) told the FAPL Mrs Jane Purdon, a solicitor and Head of Player Administration at the FAPL, that WHU had not entered into ANY arrangemetns with third parties in respect of Tevez or Mascherano and that the Club owned all the rights to the players. In reliance on Mr Duxbury’s assurance, the FAPL approved the registration of both players.”
what is laughable is Wet Spam saying that Tevez didn’t have an influence as they get less points per game(on average) when he played as opposed to when he did play.
The point they appear to be missing is if he didn’t play in those game,their average points , may well have been less.
Re Kabba, IF Watford agreed to 3rd party influence,it is they that have committed the ‘crime’ of allowing the influence and not The Blades. Furthermore,West Ham seem to forget that Kabba was injured the game before and didn’t play again all season.
Obviously,The Shammers are the only ones who know what really happened as they are in the know and no ones other opinions are valid as they are not on KUMB,written by Martin Samuel,or voicesbu Tony Gale,Julian Dicks or any other person with a connection to their club.
If a club in a local league had lied ONCE to get a player registered,they would be deducted points. Lie TWICE they would be relegated or kicked out of the league.
Stop trying to defend the indefensable.
Spot on fella, with everything. Dig the way you’ve picked our pocket, an all. Glad to be of help. Well done.
In other words, “Shut Up, Mother Brown” and “Pay Up, Mother Brown” because you’ve been well and truly rumbled.
Jonny, the joke of it is there in that FAPL Arbitration report. Look at the third party companies key rights over the players. Are they little more than an agreement made between a club loaning a player to another club? The only issue is that there was no defined minimum period for the loan. The third party could terminate it whenever they pleased. For that technicality West Ham were fined, but as report says the registration of Tevez was considered to be ok, and if West Ham tore up the third party agreement it continued to be so. At no point was he considered to be ineligible.
What’s farcical is those rights do not specify that the third party can choose which clubs the players can or can’t play against, unlike many other loan agreements (even if it is just a “gentleman’s agreement”). Which has more third party influence on the league?
Jonny Wirmola
March 25th, 2009 | 7:04 am
What is the point of your post. All of the points in in it were heard at the tribunal and West Ham were given a world record fine. This offending clause was not part of Carlos Tevez’s registration contract but a side contract between MSI and West Ham. The clause was of precisely no benefit to West Ham and gave them no advantage over Sheffield United.
1. If West Ham should have been deducted points why was this not a prescribed punishment?
2. If a World record fine was not appropriate why was it an option.
3. If the menu of available punishments was not appropriate why was it agreed by all PL clubs including SU
Everything that follows from this is nonsense. We have enterered into a Kafkaesque world where West Ham have been the victims of lies half truths and speculation. In perpetuating the lies that SU were not responsible for their own fate, the club is follwing in the same path as Dr. Paul Josef Goebels. If you tell lies for long enough people will start to believe them.
The whole knub of this issue is that Sheffield United deserved precisely nothing, as Carlos Tevez was always registered and Sheffield United’s exploits on the playing field were entirely the cause of their relegation.
Hmmm. Wonder why Duckers felt the need to buy us off then? Perhaps he was trying to avoid any closer inspection of the books…
West Ham will always be remembered for thi from now on. I bet you’re so proud.
Great article… for once one not written by some southern hack with a giant chip on his shoulder.
At the end of the day West Ham fielded a ringer and subsequently lied about it and got away with it. The cost (fine included) of cheating and playing said ringer far out weighed the cost of being honest and almost certain relegation.
Any other league except the Premier League would have docked them points and kicked them out.
Hopefully, this will be one victory on the long road to getting our sport back. However, given the amount of snouts that remain in the trough, I doubt things will happen soon!
Richi
March 25th, 2009 | 1:32 pm
At the end of the day West Ham fielded a ringer and subsequently lied about it.
What part of these phrases from the PL do you not comprehend:
“1. Tevez has been properly registered to play for West Ham United since 31 August 2006. The Board, under our Rules, is charged with the authority to determine this.
2. He continues to be registered with West Ham United.”.
Are you one of these SU supporters that actually believe that McCabe is a bona fide campaigner for “justice”. After the Kabba, Spring and Morgan?/Hume issues, with all the hypocrisy exposed, I would be surprised to find any who believe that garbage.
In reply to some of the comments made by various…
1. Chris
March 24th, 2009 | 10:35 pm
Finally a sensible article.
*In what way ? It’s full of inaccuracies ? I haven’t got any problem with someone’s opinion that WH should have been deducted points. This is their opinion.
Tevez would not have been allowed to be registered if West Ham had mentioned the 3rd party agreement.
*Simply not true. Man Utd have Tevez under a similar agreement but without the offending clause in. If you read the letter from the PL it states that in all probability a solution would have been reached with the MSI clause. That Mascherano and then Tevez went to other clubs sort of backs that up.
They were asked about it by the PL on transfer deadline day, they lied.
*Yep, a dark day for West Ham , which they were fined a world record fee for.
After the first arbitration they were then told to remove the agreement so he could play the final 3 matches, they said that they had, but again they lied. Now they have been caught. Simple.
*Well, I believe that’s just supposition. If you’re pointing at the ‘oral cuddles’ thing, SU & Watford have admitted to this on their websites.
Only thing now is for the new Premier/FA investigation to finally deduct the points that should have originally been deducted.
*Again, (I know it’s long) read the PL letter. It spells out why points were not deducted. As I mentioned you may not agree with it, but that’s what the commission decided. You can’t blame WH for an independent reviews decision.
2. WickersleyBlade
March 24th, 2009 | 11:02 pm
That’ll be the same “Knees Up Mother Brown” where a member wishes Mr McCabe dead, where the level of rapier-sharp wit reaches its zenith with renaming Mr McCabe “McC***” and where your keyboard warriors claim to be looking forward to meeting SUFC for a bit of violence.
*Well, all forums have people on them who allow themselves to be swept along on seas of zeal. I’m not condoning it, but people seem to do one of two things when attacked. I’d be amused to hear you argue that some on SU sites haven’t done similar. However, this is the same KUMB where a chap calling himself unbiased blade had a fair crack of the whip.
Sad to say, the good name of WHU died with Moore, Lyall and Greenwood, men of quality and dignity who must be spinning in their graves at the shabby depths a once-decent club has now plumbed. Sad to say, too, that you won’t be remembered for any of the good men of your past, but for the Icelandic gamblers who showed utter contempt for the game’s laws,Scott Duxbury whose economy with the truth knows no bounds, and a horde of whining, whingeing, squealing fans who think the only thing WHU did wrong was to be found out.
*I’m afraid there’s some inaccuracies in here old chap. Firstly, the Icelanders came in the January after the August (when Tevez arrived). WH’s good name has been damaged due to more than just one thing in my view. Firstly the clause as understood. Secondly the plethora of inaccuracies voiced by numerous people especially football commentators who should know better. Mainly that Tevez was ineligible or Tevez scored the goal that sent SU down. The inaccuracies have been continued ever since and now people believe them. I remember being told when young that two wrongs don’t make a right. Yep, members of WH staff did wrong. They owned up to it. They were punished. That the punishment didn’t suit you (SU) is not any of WH’s doing.
And found out you were, big-style: the PL are wetting their collective pants because they know they should dock you points but daren’t, while you’ve until July to find a buyer in the depths of a recession or be docked 15 points for going into administration. No wonder you’re so fidgety.
*As mentioned above, WH voluntarily made the PL aware of the agreement. Again the PL decided not to give a points deduction. There was no precedent for this. Again, this is just your opinion which is valid as just that, an opinion.
3. Jonny Wirmola
March 25th, 2009 | 7:04 am
So was he “propery registered”? Judge for yourself.
I have attached an extract from the FAPL Arbitration report from 3 July 2007, heard by Sir Philip Otton. The FAPL spells out what happened:
“Prior to the execution of the third party agreements WHU had sought advice from the FAPL as to whether it would be acceptable to grant a third party the right to terminate a player’s contract. They were told that it was not.
On 31 August 2006 West Ham filed documentation with the FAPL relating to the proposed registration of Tevez and Mascherano with the Club, which made no mention of any third party arrangements. The Club did not disclose to the FAPL the existence of the Tevez Agreement or Mascherano Agreement.
On 1 September 2006, the then Legal and Commercial Director of WHU ( Mr Scott Duxbury) told the FAPL Mrs Jane Purdon, a solicitor and Head of Player Administration at the FAPL, that WHU had not entered into ANY arrangemetns with third parties in respect of Tevez or Mascherano and that the Club owned all the rights to the players. In reliance on Mr Duxbury’s assurance, the FAPL approved the registration of both players.”
* Jonny. With reference to the document above (the PL one)… they state that in all probability any problem clauses would have been ironed out. This holds up with the fact that 1st Mascherano, then Tevez went to other clubs under similar agreements. I.e. they were ironed out.
4. IJT
March 25th, 2009 | 8:14 am
what is laughable is Wet Spam saying that Tevez didn’t have an influence as they get less points per game(on average) when he played as opposed to when he did play.
* I suppose you could argue philosophically that everything has an influence on everything else. I’m not sure what you mean by laughable (but as you’ve used Wet Spam , good one that by the way) I’d guess you mean it negatively. Statistically that is true, the games he didn’t play WH did accumulate more points than when he did.
The point they appear to be missing is if he didn’t play in those game,their average points , may well have been less.
* And the point you appear to be missing is that if he hadn’t played in those games the average points may have been more. How can we tell ? Consider this. At the point in time you’re reading this, just take a second to think of all of the events that have happened to you in your life to get you to this point. Can you, with any accuracy, say that if anything had been different (you turn left instead of right, you kiss the blonde haired girl and not the red head at the party) we would still be having this conversation. There’s no way of knowing. The ridiculousness of the judgement by the last panel is that they are saying that if X person had not been playing Y result would have occurred. There are innumerable factors that show this decision to be impossible to make.
Re Kabba, IF Watford agreed to 3rd party influence,it is they that have committed the ‘crime’ of allowing the influence and not The Blades. Furthermore,West Ham seem to forget that Kabba was injured the game before and didn’t play again all season.
*But both websites stated that an agreement was made not to play him. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but this suggests, by the use of the word agreement,
that both parties had an ‘influence’ on the decision made. Whether he was injured or not is irrelevant to the agreement that was made.
5. WickersleyBlade
March 25th, 2009 | 1:14 pm
Hmmm. Wonder why Duckers felt the need to buy us off then? Perhaps he was trying to avoid any closer inspection of the books…
West Ham will always be remembered for thi from now on. I bet you’re so proud.
*Come on WB, these little digs devalue any contribution you make. It’s believed that the Icelanders want to sell. If theres an unknown potential liability it could affect any sale. My opinion is that this would make sense for a businessman wanting to sell i.e. he’s removing the grey area. That part of me can understand why WH paid. The part that doesn’t wonders how some one can seriously suggest that a single person is worth X amount of points in a certain number of games. I’d be interested to hear what you believe Barnsley should do if they go down this season. Surely, using the same logic as has been to your advantage, the fact that Ian Hulme (sp) has missed much of the season due to the actions of one of SU’s players, will entitle them to claim without too much recourse to the courts that they would have stayed up if he’d been playing. Maybe him playing for the whole season would have turned them into promotion candidates , we’ll never know. Or, the Reading / Watford game. What if they pip you chaps to that final play off place on account of that ‘goal’ ?
6. Richi
March 25th, 2009 | 1:32 pm
Great article… for once one not written by some southern hack with a giant chip on his shoulder.
*Sorry Richi, but it’d be worth reading the replies above to get a more balanced view. What is it with some of you northern chaps about the South ?
Not that long ago Yossi Benayoun was going to sign a new deal at WH. It came to light in the media that Liverpool liked him. He didn’t sign and went to Liverpool. At the last look Liverpool are a team in the north. Why weren’t they brought to task about this ? Is it cos they is from the north ? Anyway surely we’re all one big happy country and we all love each other.
yep, great article apart from the lack of research. By all means write an article and argue your point of view but at the very least get the facts right. All the documentation is easily found on the Internet.
As long as clubs like WHU are allowed to ruin the name of the Premier League the whole of the sport we all love will be in shadow. Why? Because the PL is the only thing which gets any coverage. Why? Because of the money involved. Anyone think they can find anything in the national Press about their club if they’re not in the PL? BBC doesn’t even acknowledge the FL. The media created the PL, and the established PL clubs have come, like WHU, to believe they are bigger than the game. If Kevin Blackwell said a tenth of the things Fergie, Wenger & Co. get away with he’d be working unpaid. You won’t ever get our game back because these WHU cynics show the kind of amorality that rules now.
Has anyone noticed as well that, although they’ve coughed up £25m in damages & are forever moaning about lawyers and journos, they’re always quick to paste ‘evidence’ that proves their ‘innocence’ and that the only journalists who’ve presented the case fairly are Martin Samuel, Dan Mason and the bloke who writes Franco’s programme notes? They even claim that “all football” is behind them. If it wasn’t so funny you’d throw up. Luckily, Patrick Barclay, Jeff Powell, Oliver Holt, Henry Winter and many more journos show these scribblers the way it really is.
Interesting article from a neutral party. Maybe it should be pointed out that there is no love lost between Sheff Utd & Notts Forest after the playoff games a few years back and the accusations bouncing back & forth about gamesmanship, pitch watering etc. Not to mention the general animosity between the areas as a whole following events of the early 80s.
[Long & rambling stuff removed]
* Jonny. With reference to the document above (the PL one)… they state that in all probability any problem clauses would have been ironed out. This holds up with the fact that 1st Mascherano, then Tevez went to other clubs under similar agreements. I.e. they were ironed out.
The whole point of the quoted section was that West Ham lied to enable them to register the players. They were SPECIFICALLY TOLD that the 3rd party agreement was not allowed. When asked if there were side agreements, they lied, knowing the side agreements would mean they couldn’t register the players. Thus the players were only registered as a result of cheating. Yes they were registered, but by no stretch of the immagination can they have been considered to be registered within the laws of the game in this country.
Yes, the 3rd party agreement COULD have been smoothed out, as Liverpool & mudchester’s later deals show. However, Wet Sham didn’t do this – they chose instead to lie. In all probability, MSI would not have loaned the players to Wet Sham without that clause.
The FAPL are as (if not more) to blame for the ensuing debacle. Scudamore & Richards should have resigned IMMEDIATELY following the original tribunal.
Dunno why I’m bothering to reply to “les marteaux”, but his message seems so bizarre.
So here goes.
What’s Kabba and Spring got to do with anything. Both deals were within the rules, had they not been the club wouldn’t have done them that way.
Why you carping on about Morgan and Hume? What’s that got to do with anything? Sheffield United or Kevin McCabe weren’t involved. The FA and the police have said it can’t be proved it was deliberate. Most camara angles (except one obscure one) show a collision. Maybe, you’re just seeing what you want to see.
Anyway, why are you so upset about all of this. An international superstar ended up at little West Ham when no other club would touch him because of the contract (ask Rick Parry at Liverpool). He kept you up and your club is now moving on towards Europe. You should be delighted had the Premier League acted like any other sporting organisation West Ham would have been docked points.
So be glad of what West Hams got, had the football authorities acted correctly you’d be far worse off.
Good article. As a non-Blade and non-Hammer it is written well, and offers a different viewpoint to those already published (predominantly pro-West Ham).
The facts as stated seem to tally with the official PL and FA stance so no fault there. WHU have been caught cheating – no dispute. WHU have paid to avoid the drop that they should have been given – no dispute. McCabe and Sheff U have milked the justice line to a degree, then settled for some ‘hush money’ – no dispute. I can’t see anyone coming out of this well, but the worst offenders have to be the Legal and management at WHU who knew exactly what they were doing, and the FA PL who also knew what they were letting themselves in for.
Still, thumbs up for the piece :)
1. WickersleyBlade
*As long as clubs like WHU are allowed to ruin the name of the Premier *League the whole of the sport we all love will be in shadow.
WB. If you could come down from the high of your near religious holier than thou stance, it sounds like you believe WH are the only club ever to have done anything. I notice from your replies that you carefully ignore answering questions asked re. your thoughts on cases like Kabba / Hulme. If you are going to make this stance you have to apply the same rule to actions taken by all clubs, your included. Just dismissing Kabba / Hulme as ‘irrelevant’ doesn’t mean that they aren’t.
*Why? Because the PL is the only thing which gets any coverage. Why? *Because of the money involved. Anyone think they can find anything in the *national Press about their club if they’re not in the PL?
Now this is where we can agree. I personally would like to see a system where tv money is distributed far more evenly and fairly. I’d also like to see a system of transfers where a youth player who is bought by a club automatically has a sell on clause which benefits the nurturing club for 2/3 transfers. Problem is, football, like society, is siphoning resource in greater qty up into the hands of the privileged few.
*BBC doesn’t even acknowledge the FL. The media created the PL, and the *established PL clubs have come, like WHU, to believe they are bigger than *the game.
Don’t agree I’m afraid. I think you’d have more of a point if this was directed at the ‘big 4’. It’s become a vicious circle. Champ Lg money = bigger/ better squads = more money etc etc.
*If Kevin Blackwell said a tenth of the things Fergie, Wenger & Co. get away *with he’d be working unpaid. You won’t ever get our game back because *these WHU cynics show the kind of amorality that rules now.
Bit more supposition methinks (about Blackwell). Did WH have anything to do with the Clough paper bag stuff (mentioned by someone earlier) ? No. The impression you’re giving me is that somehow WH are the only team ever to have done something wrong. Well old son, sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but there’s been naughty stuff going on for years.
*Has anyone noticed as well that, although they’ve coughed up £25m in *damages & are forever moaning about lawyers and journos, they’re always *quick to paste ‘evidence’ that proves their ‘innocence’ and that the only *journalists who’ve presented the case fairly are Martin Samuel, Dan Mason *and the bloke who writes Franco’s programme notes?
I can see you love your club. I’m sure as well you understand that WH fans love theirs. Where has there been any ‘pasting’ of anything that proves our ‘ innocence’ ? You seem to have wholly missed the point. The documents pasted up show the facts as given by the PL. The basis of your argument is answered within that. You might not agree with the outcome of it, but sorry, it’s what it is.
*They even claim that “all football” is behind them. If it wasn’t so funny *you’d throw up. Luckily, Patrick Barclay, Jeff Powell, Oliver Holt, Henry *Winter and many more journos show these scribblers the way it really is.
More and more of football is understanding what SU’s pursuit of cash has done to the game, yes. Is this the same Henry Winter that stated that Tevez’s goal was the goal that kept WH up ? Er, no old chap it didn’t. If Tevez hadn’t scored it would have been 0-0. A point was enough for WH with the result of SU v Wigan. Bet Jagielka was a popular fellow that day. Is this the same Oliver Holt that I believe to have co-authored ‘Made in Sheffield, my story by Neil Warnock & Oliver Holt ? Isn’t that snug if true ?
2. Me
*Yes, the 3rd party agreement COULD have been smoothed out, as Liverpool *& mudchester’s later deals show. However, Wet Sham didn’t do this – they *chose instead to lie. In all probability, MSI would not have loaned the players *to Wet Sham without that clause.
It seems to me your saying yes on one hand no on the other. WH got fined and paid the fine. That should have been the end of the matter. WH did not decide the fine. WH did not have any influence over the fine. The 20 PL clubs sign up to an agreement that they will abide by arbitration rulings etc. SU didn’t do this. Again, I can understand someones OPINION that WH should have got a point deduction. The panel decided not to. They weighed the evidence and decided the penalty that should be applied. Not WH.
3. richi
*What’s Kabba and Spring got to do with anything. Both deals were within *the rules, had they not been the club wouldn’t have done them that way.
Don’t know too much about Spring, but Kabba everything. To re-iterate, the ‘offence’ WH were punished for is 3rd party influence, i.e no club should have a say over the team selection of another (or words to that effect). Basically, the very clause SU have been attacking WH about they (and Watford) both admitted to on their websites. Because it wasn’t ‘in the contract’ doesn’t mean that the clubs didn’t agree to not play him. This is plain and simple 3rd party influence. As you boys continue to use the ‘we’re saving the game for the rest of you’ line, the ‘spirit’ you so vociferously say you are trying to defend seems to apply to everyone else.
Disputed facts in the article
1. the contention that the West Ham players were not legally registered to play. The League have maintained throughout that they were. You can argue that anyway you want but they are the guys in charge – they make the decisions. And, it’s not always to the letter of the rulebook as in Mascherano’s third club in a season move to Anifield or Robbie Keane re-signing with Spurs in the same year. West Ham were just stupid with how they handled it and were rightly punished. As Scudamore says “..as the League seeks generally to help Clubs register players not prevent them”
2.”..deduction of points that the FAPL’s code of conduct decrees.” It really doesn’t say any such thing. The common sense decision the League came to was to let the relegation battle be decided on the pitch.
3.”.. were found to have continued playing him under the very terms they’d acknowledged as improper.” Interestingly it seems this isn’t possible. Even if the infamous ‘oral cuddles’ is true there is a very strong held belief that the third party agreements aren’t actually enforceable anyway. Seeing as lawyers are now involved this is the kind of rubbish it boils down to. It should also be noted that Kia started a lawsuit against West Ham for breach of contract.
Also you use the phrase “merits of legality”. There is in fact a lot of contention as to whether West Ham actually broke U18 in the first place. If they had lawyered up in SU fashion there’s every chance they would have avoided any punishment at all.
All in all the whole saga has been blown out of proportion. The League is clearly accommodating to the member clubs when it comes to the registration of players.
What is remarkable is the degree of certainty with which WHU supporters state their case. In the beginning, they were certain that there was no case to answer and that SUFC had no form of redress. They were promptly fined £5m and the same know-alls said that was a disgrace and would be overturned. It wasn’t. Then, when Mr McCabe would not just roll over, they declared with absolute certainty that his chances equated to a snowball’s in Hell. Through High Court hearings and SUFC’s visit to Parliament, and the setting up of the arbitration panel of 3, not just Lord Griffiths, these self-satisfied “In-The-Knows” quoted chapter and verse on why WHU would never have to part with a penny. Wrong again. Now, just answer me this question: when these self-appointed experts lay down the law about what is to come, do you believe them? Put aside for one moment the amorality of a club whose owner already has previous for fraud, and whose supporters’ view of right and wrong seems to equate with Del Trotter’s, and wonder what is going to be in WHU’s accounts which have to be announced next week? In the midst of the current recession, where are the businessmen who are going to form a consortium to buy WHU? Who’s to say what the PL may yet decide to impose by way of a points deduction? It’s all very well lecturing us on your interpretation of the laws broken and not broken, but you’ve been wrong consistently and there’s much more life in this yet. And you’ve only got until July before BG’s creditors seize all his assets.
Stand by for a detailed list of rebuttals, all of which will be proved wrong…..
Try an opinion voiced by one of WHU’s supporters on “Knees Up Mother Brown” about his gratitude to Kia Joorabchian for bringing Tevez to the Boleyn:
“Yeah – we wouldn’t have had Tevez in a West Ham shirt (something we’ll be telling our grandkids about) if it wasn’t for him… Makes me want to give him a big girly kiss on the bottom, frankly.” September 2007
Or try the FACT that the Icelandic owner of WHU was arraigned on 450 charges relating to fraudulent accounting, was found guilty on a specimen 6 (otherwise they’d still be trying him today) and sentenced to 2 years in jail, suspended. He then re-made his fortune in Russia, where lots of honest guys made a lot of quick money.
Or the FACT that Kia Joorabchian would be very welcome in Brazil, where corruption charges still await him.
Can we see why WHU lads seem to be so keen on ‘the law’?
Isn’t this what we’re supposed to do? Debate our opinions on the various decisions based on the what’s been documented throughout?
Just read this since I posted last and I was right first time. Waste of time arguing with a gobshite tabloid brain. You’ve got some patience my Hammer friends but when a guy believes in his own misinformation and insists on being a pillock then it’s a waste of time even trying to have an objective discussion. Can’t be asked myself.
Well, abuse may be your idea of “objective” but you can’t actually argue with what I said. You HAVE been wrong at every stage, your owner and Tevez’ agent ARE possessed of very dodgy criminal pasts and your fans gloated at the role Tevez played and voted him “Player of the Year”. NOW you want to re-write history and paint yourselves in the colours of innocent victims while SUFC are somehow ruining the game as we know it. ‘Fraid not: none of this would have happened without WHU setting the whole process in train, and all your mock-legal indignation doesn’t fool anyone. You don’t want a debate, you just want to shout down anyone who won’t join in your whitewash. I’m not putting aside 45+ years of devotion to my football club on the whim of some London spivs.
The hypocrites on this subject be they fans and within the game are countless.
West Ham broke rules and were punished, whether anyone agreed with the penalty or not is irrelevant as the matter was dealt with FAPL, end of.
Clubs up and done the country have flouted rules and have either got away with it or punished for it, clubs going into adminstration cheating ordinary people out of money they are entitled to while still spending on footballers they can’t afford is equally cheating and a fair bigger crime to me than West Ham offences.
The main point I am making like it or not whatever the crime other clubs have to accept the penalty the authorities dish out to the guilty party no matter how it may impact them.
What is different here is one club has broken ranks and taken an opportunity to line their pockets. As the action was taken by club with an awful history of conduct within the game we shouldn’t have been surprised.
There is the argument that West Ham broke the rules again, well let the FA/PL investigate and take the necessary action.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that Sheffield United’s actions are equally or even more damaging to the game than West Ham’s is a total hypocrite, only time will tell how big that damage is.
If I was a West Ham fan I would embarrassed by the conduct of my club but if I were a Sheffield United fan I would be ashamed.
1. WickersleyBlade
What is remarkable is the degree of certainty with which WHU supporters state their case.
*The only ‘degree of certainty’ any (WH) case is stated upon is what is in the documents/findings of the original panel. You seem to forget that the original panel decided the punishment. SU didn’t like the result of this so there was another get together which concluded that the original panel had acted correctly. Still not happy with that SU carry on. Eventually you’ve found a panel that have found in your favour.
Wrong again. Now, just answer me this question: when these self-appointed experts lay down the law about what is to come, do you believe them?
*Personally I will listen to as many views as possible, try and sort the chaff from the grain and evaluate what I’ve seen. I’ll then take what I believe to be an honest view. When (in this case) a judgement is made I’ll review this against what the judgement has determined and decide if I believe it’s fair or not.
Now, please return the favour and answer me this. Do you, as an obviously (45 yrs of watching) experienced footy person, honestly believe one person can keep a team up or send a team down. I ask this as this is the basis of Griffiths decision, i.e. Tevez was worth ‘3’ points therefore WH are culpable.
Put aside for one moment the amorality of a club whose owner already has previous for fraud, and whose supporters’ view of right and wrong seems to equate with Del Trotter’s,
*So how do you conclude that the whole club is immoral due to the actions of an owner who perpetrated his ‘fraud’ prior to purchasing WH. I see in a subsequent answer you complain about people being abusive. Pots ands kettles old chap.
Stand by for a detailed list of rebuttals, all of which will be proved wrong…..
*WB. We have a different view on some of the points of the case. How is it that anything that doesn’t conform to your view is a ‘rebuttal’ but any thing that doesn’t conform to ours you deem as WH being Del Trotteresque ?
2. WickersleyBlade
Try an opinion voiced by one of WHU’s supporters on “Knees Up Mother Brown” about his gratitude to Kia Joorabchian for bringing Tevez to the Boleyn:
“Yeah – we wouldn’t have had Tevez in a West Ham shirt (something we’ll be telling our grandkids about) if it wasn’t for him… Makes me want to give him a big girly kiss on the bottom, frankly.” September 2007.
* I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with this. This chap (you quote) obviously felt like this. Probably so did others. The idea that WH couldn’t have ‘world class’ players just doesn’t hold. Firstly, how do we define world class ? They play for their country ? They’re a level above that of an ‘ordinary’ international ? If we take the 1st definition then Moore, Hurst, Peters, Brooking, Lampard, Ferdinand, Carrick, Cole etc. If you don’t agree with the definition , please, provide another one and we’ll come to an agreement.
Or try the FACT that the Icelandic owner of WHU was arraigned on 450 charges relating to fraudulent accounting, was found guilty on a specimen 6 (otherwise they’d still be trying him today) and sentenced to 2 years in jail, suspended. He then re-made his fortune in Russia, where lots of honest guys made a lot of quick money.
* And I (as a WH fan) can do anything about this eh ?
Or the FACT that Kia Joorabchian would be very welcome in Brazil, where corruption charges still await him.Can we see why WHU lads seem to be so keen on ‘the law’?
*If you’d looked in the same thread as the quote above is from you’d see plenty of ‘we don’t want anything to do with Kia’ stuff in there.
3. WickersleyBlade
Well, abuse may be your idea of “objective” but you can’t actually argue with what I said.
* Well actually we can argue. You have quite fairly put over your feeling/view of the affair. I’ve reviewed my replies to alternative viewpoints on this list and cannot find anything that could be deemed ‘abuse’. Whereas you seem to be attacking WH fans as a whole.
You HAVE been wrong at every stage,
*Please explain what you mean ?
your owner and Tevez’ agent ARE possessed of very dodgy criminal pasts
* Again, what can I (or any WH fan) do about that ? What do you expect us to do ? What would you do ?
NOW you want to re-write history and paint yourselves in the colours of innocent victims while SUFC are somehow ruining the game as we know it.
*What I’d personally have liked to see is the miss-information that has been utilised from day one countered by WH. This is the one thing McCabe has been brilliant at (playing the media). I personally am not after any re-writing of history. We are now becoming victims. 20 SU players apparently want a slice. Agnes the tea lady might have sold more buns. Palace have a shout as they’ve had Neil Warnock this season. Where do you believe your (SU’s) responsibility starts ? WH were fined. We can’t re-write that, yet SU didn’t like it and carried on. SU’s appeal to the fine failed but SU didn’t like that and carried on. We can’t re-write that. SU get an arbitration but WH can’t fight that. No, that just wouldn’t be justice would it.
‘Fraid not: none of this would have happened without WHU setting the whole process in train, and all your mock-legal indignation doesn’t fool anyone.
*Yep, it was Scott Duxburys failure to see the problems that would arise from this ‘clause’ that set this in motion. Not being a lawyer I fail to see how this can be mock legal indignation. You chaps have rung the bell of justice for a long time now but have forgotten that justice holds a balance. In my view SU have tried to push the balance too far.
You don’t want a debate, you just want to shout down anyone who won’t join in your whitewash. I’m not putting aside 45+ years of devotion to my football club on the whim of some London spivs.
*Sorry WB, I do want a debate. That’s why I’m replying to your words. Because I don’t agree with some of what you’re saying I’m now a London spiv ? As I mentioned, I’ve reviewed my words and don’t feel I’ve ‘shouted’ anyone down. I’ve tried to state the case as I believe it. You may disagree, which is fine, but in my view SU are holding the paint brush. Also I wouldn’t expect you to put aside 45 yrs of devotion. Do you expect any different from people at other clubs ?
And what’s more, WHU are currently pulling every trick in the book to avoid publishing their accounts. Shady club, dodgy owners.
richi
March 26th, 2009 | 11:06 am
Dunno why I’m bothering to reply to “les marteaux”, but his message seems so bizarre.
So here goes.
What’s Kabba and Spring got to do with anything. Both deals were within the rules, had they not been the club wouldn’t have done them that way.
I suppose if you are attempting to take the moral high ground while at the same time trying to gain an advantage for your club you would try to dismiss these matters as irrelevant, but the fact is that they are both issues of one team trying to influence another’s decisions. This is unlike what West Ham have done in only one respect: Kabba = actual third party influence, Tevez = hypothetical and unenforcable third party influence.
I agree that there is a system of one law for the rich and one law for the rest, and SU should be grateful for this, as make no mistake about it, had Manchester United not been let off the Howard case then SU would have been charged for the Kabba fiasco. The point I want to make however is that West Ham are not included in the big clubs and favourable treatments. This is the reason why why West Ham were given a massive fine which has made some people think that the minor technicality in a side contract was something akin to match fixing, drugging, opposition’s half-time tea or murder.
In my view the Ashley Cole tapping up was a far more serious issue and they were given a derisory fine which they could pay from the petty cash. Had they or Liverpool been involved in a Tevez like situation, the whole matter would have been dealt with in a less sensational manner and certainly no world record fine.
I’m sorry if you think my post is bizarre but in my view the whole affair has been blown out of all proportion. The ludicrous Griffiths ruling should have been challenged in court, West Ham should have not coughed up a penny to an undeserving and opportunistic Sheffield United. However there are pragmattic reasons why this case has been settled and McCabe ahs proved that black is white and two and two make five because of circumstances pertaining to the finances of BG. I do not feel as though this is a satisfactory outcome, and it is no comfort to me that West Ham are still in the PL as that is where they should be following the amazing football over the last eleven games of that season.
What you basically expected McCabe to do was give up and let you get away with it. He didn’t. The expression “leaving no stone unturned” is most appropriate here. WHU weren’t interested in justice – in fact you now only use the word in a pejorative sense, like some old lag who hates the law. I raised the points about the crooks at the helm of your club and you just shrug. We had one, a man called Paul Woolhouse. We got rid and disowned him. He wasn’t still there for three years like your Icelandic bandit. I care so little about the collateral damage the results of your misdeeds have caused: ANYBODY can sue WHU as far as I am concerned as they are a moral void. As I’ve said before: If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime. I’m sure if BG, not one to turn down the chance of a quick buck at the best of times, could sue SUFC for anything he would. But he can’t. There’s worse to come for you guys, and you daren’t even think about it.
“As the action was taken by club with an awful history of conduct within the game we shouldn’t have been surprised.”
Details please.
Still waiting for this “awful history of conduct within the game” smear to be explained….
WickersleyBlade
What you basically expected McCabe to do was give up and let you get away with it. We didn’t get away with it, we were given a record fine.
The word justice is a pejorative term when applied to the dealings of McCabe. There are precedents for courts getting things so badly wrong: Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Ernest Saunders (remember him the man who got off because he had Altzheimer’s which miraculously reversed when he walked.
The damage West Ham have caused is precisely what?
The offence was trivial apart from the lying. The damage was only done to West Ham’s reputation The damage done by McCabe vexatious litigation will be immesurable unless the Griffiths ruling is overturned.
The whole basis of SU’s case has been the lie that SU were not relegated on their own merit, and their whinging about another team not being punished enough to suit them would be laughable were it not for the serious ramifications of this case.
The Sheffield United Chairman is a liar and a hypocrite, and they will be as welcome in the Premier League as Martin Borman at a barmitzvah, especially the thuggish Morgan who should heve been charged with GBH.
I have to say after that deranged outburst, with not a shred of truth or reality in it, you’ve made our case PERFECTLY.
I’d be very careful about what you say about Mr McCabe. There is irrefutable proof of your owner’s criminality, and Kia Joorabchian’s shady past, but you are perilously close to libel in your comments about lying in respect to Mr McCabe. Maybe you’d be brave enough to say when he’s lied, and we can forward it to SUFC for their comments?
WickersleyBlade
March 28th, 2009 | 10:53 am
“As the action was taken by club with an awful history of conduct within the game we shouldn’t have been surprised.”
Details please.
With the exception of Wimbledon has there been a club who have disgraced the English game on the pitch as much as Sheffield United over the last 20 years?
How many fines and charges have the Sheffield United club and players faced in the last 20 years? A lot more than most!
To be honest reading your posts you are so one-eyed towards Sheffield United it is pointless being drawn into a debate with you.
The point of my post was that West Ham did wrong and were punished like Sheffield United and many others have done over the years.
Personally I cannot agree with Sheffield United’s course of action and would have felt the same had it been Forest.
You will obviously not agree with my view and now with Griffith’s crazy verdict, a precedent has been set that hypothetical match results can be stated as fact in a court room and I strongly believe football will live to regret Sheffield United’s actions.
1. WickersleyBlade
*WHU weren’t interested in justice
And reading your previous statements WB, neither are you. WB, I’ve (and others) consistently tried to engage you in a debate of the facts of the case as presented by the PL. I’ve just re-read all your replies. Obviously, you don’t feel the punishment handed out to WH was satisfactory. What do you believe would have been satisfactory ? and upon what basis / reason do you believe your conclusion to be a just one.
*I raised the points about the crooks at the helm *of your club and you just *shrug. We had one, a *man called Paul Woolhouse. We got rid and *disowned *him.
I’m still unsure what you’re trying to show with this. Wasn’t the Wigan chairman brought to task about shirt prices in JJB ? Should Wigan supporters be seeking his head on a spike or something ? Are you suggesting that anyone in the East End is in league with Satan and his little wizards ? WH bbq babies or some such. Your passion in this appears to have blinded you to reason.
Have to admit I haven’t heard of Paul Woolhouse so I can’t comment. I’d be interested to hear your view of his reign and what happened. Not sure how much you know about Terry Brown (the owner prior to BG), but there were numerous campaigns against him. It’s his regime that instigated Tevez. Seems to me you don’t really want to debate. The majority of your replies seem to be ya boo WH dirty and smelly etc. as if this somehow removes any need for a reasoned argument.
*He wasn’t still there for three years like your *Icelandic bandit. I care so little *about the *collateral damage the results of your misdeeds *have caused: *ANYBODY can sue WHU as far as I am *concerned as they are a moral void.
And this statement sort of backs up what I’ve just said. Please correct me if I’ve mis-interpreted your meaning, but it seems you believe that any action is justifiable against WH irrespective of the merit of that action ? What I must congratulate you and SU on is the constant re-aligning of the discussion away from the PL’s initial ruling and subsequent review of the ruling. This has been a masterstroke of diversion (have you chaps read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War ?).
*As I’ve said before: If you can’t do the time, *don’t commit the crime.
WH did a ‘crime’ and paid.
*I’m sure if BG, not one to turn down the chance *of a quick buck at the best of times, could sue *SUFC for anything he would.
Bit like Mr. McCabe then with WH.
But he can’t. There’s worse to come for you guys, and you daren’t even think about it.
* What do you believe is the worse to come ?
I’ll start with the last point.
You have now, by means of a loophole in the law, managed to avoid having your accounts in the public domain until June. What are you concealing? Your own fans on “Knees Up Mother Brown” are up in arms about it. The PL is re-investigating the conduct of WHU’s administration during those final 3 games, and Tevez’ ineligibility. Points deduction? You have until July to sell the club, otherwise Hansa, BG’s creditors will seize it. Now in the depths of a recession I can’t see a queue of businessmen wanting to buy a club with a rolling debt of £50 million. Aministration? Further deduction? At present the picture of WHU, as presented by Scott Duxbury, is of a swan serenely floating along the surface. What we can’t see is the desperate thrashing around under the water. Several people, including the much-maligned Dave Whelan, have said that a Premiership club, and possibly more than one, will go under this year. Which ones are ahead of you in the queue? Portsmouth?
We’ve now reached the stage when the scatter-gun abuse is being employed. Have SUFC one of the worst on-field records? I think if you consult the Fair Play League records you’ll find just the opposite. Neil Warnock may be among the most reviled men in football, but I bet he bumped into Fergie and Arsene quite often at Soho Square when they were appearing before disciplinary committees. Haven’t Arsenal a pretty appalling record in the disciplinary stakes? Ah, but they’re a BIG London club.
I’m no fan of Neil Warnock’s because he is tactically a dinosaur, but his teams always gave 100% honest commitment. However, I’d like to be in a room with Richard Scudamore, not to threaten him with violence, but to ask him why he felt it necessary to excuse the puny initial verdict against WHU by saying that it would be unfair on their fans to make a points deduction. And SUFC’s fans? Tough luck. Surprise was expressed in the High Court at the lack of a points deduction, but because that verdict suits WHU then SUFC should have taken the matter no further. What really upsets you, I think, is that you didn’t believe you’d be found out and punished to the extent you have been. You can’t dispute the original offence, you can’t dispute the lying, confessed to after, and only after, Mr Shear’s testimony exposed you as not being men of your word, and you STILL expect SUFC not to have pursued you further? Do you have any logic in your thinking? Do you live by any code of moral standards? Or is it just a case of “Hey! It’s a jungle out there!” and each looks after their own interests as best they can? You really can’t have it both ways.
WB – I’ll start with the last point.
You have now, by means of a loophole in the law, managed to avoid having your accounts in the public domain until June. What are you concealing? Your own fans on “Knees Up Mother Brown” are up in arms about it.
*Yep, a lot of people want to know what is going on. Some on there want the Icelanders out some think they’ve taken things forward (footballing wise). You’d have to ask the WH board if they’re concealing anything old chap.
The PL is re-investigating the conduct of WHU’s administration during those final 3 games, and Tevez’ ineligibility. Points deduction?
*If we’re talking ‘oral cuddles’ I suppose we’ll have to wait and see. I put it to you again that SU & Watford both admitted on their websites that Kabba was not eligible to play due to an agreement between the clubs. As the verdict against WH was the supposed influence of a third party how do you believe this is not an example of 3rd party influence. You can’t have it both ways as well old chap. SU/Watford were not alone in this. MU did it with Howard and (I believe) Ben Foster. Points deduction. If WH are found to have done something naughty I’d suspect that would be a possible penalty, as would all the other possibilities outlined in the PL’s original verdict (i.e. fine etc). I’ve asked a number of these type of questions(SU/Watford etc) which you have expertly ignored and pointed the finger at BG, WH as a whole, WH fans.
You have until July to sell the club, otherwise Hansa, BG’s creditors will seize it. Now in the depths of a recession I can’t see a queue of businessmen wanting to buy a club with a rolling debt of £50 million. Aministration? Further deduction? At present the picture of WHU, as presented by Scott Duxbury, is of a swan serenely floating along the surface. What we can’t see is the desperate thrashing around under the water. Several people, including the much-maligned Dave Whelan, have said that a Premiership club, and possibly more than one, will go under this year. Which ones are ahead of you in the queue? Portsmouth?
*Pompey are supposedly in a bit of trouble. MU are supposedly funded by massive debt, as are Liverpool. I’ve read bits about Newcastle being in a spot of bother as well. Are you now blaming WH for un-realistic spending by other clubs ?
We’ve now reached the stage when the scatter-gun abuse is being employed. Have SUFC one of the worst on-field records?
*Don’t know. You’d have to ask the chap who made the statement. Do I remember SU walking off the pitch in a cup game against Arsenal ? Bruce was manager if I remember correctly.
I think if you consult the Fair Play League records you’ll find just the opposite. Neil Warnock may be among the most reviled men in football, but I bet he bumped into Fergie and Arsene quite often at Soho Square when they were appearing before disciplinary committees. Haven’t Arsenal a pretty appalling record in the disciplinary stakes? Ah, but they’re a BIG London club.
*Why is it you just mention the ‘BIG’ London club ? In my opinion 2 of the ‘biggest’ clubs in the country are MU & Liverpool. Do these 2 not conform to your view of what is ‘north’ ?
I’m no fan of Neil Warnock’s because he is tactically a dinosaur, but his teams always gave 100% honest commitment.
*Agreed. I think it was Dave Basset as manager, but the SU I remember was the team that were’ dead and buried’ (4 points at Xmas or something) but through their understanding that THEY were the masters of their own destiny turned it round superbly and stayed up. That type of spirit is worthy of mention. Same kind of spirit that WH showed in winning 7 out of the last 9.
However, I’d like to be in a room with Richard Scudamore, not to threaten him with violence, but to ask him why he felt it necessary to excuse the puny initial verdict against WHU by saying that it would be unfair on their fans to make a points deduction.
*You have failed to mention that there were 7 reasons given as to why a points deduction wasn’t given. It’s this miss-information that SU have utilised superbly. Here are the full seven. Why is it that SU continue to bring up just the ‘fans’ reason ?
One, the club’s pleas of guilty.
Two, 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.
Three, 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 now 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.
Four, there has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party’s fault, 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.
Five, 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. 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.
Six, 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.
Seven, it was Mr Igoe, thus the club, then under new ownership, who brought attention to these breaches.
As I’ve mentioned before, you may disagree with all of the above, that’s fair enough, it’s your opinion that they are wrong/ spurious or whatever. However, it’s still an opinion. WH(or fans if that’s what you mean) have NOT disputed the original offence. See reason 7 above.
And SUFC’s fans? Tough luck. Surprise was expressed in the High Court at the lack of a points deduction, but because that verdict suits WHU then SUFC should have taken the matter no further. What really upsets you, I think, is that you didn’t believe you’d be found out and punished to the extent you have been. You can’t dispute the original offence, you can’t dispute the lying, confessed to after, and only after, Mr Shear’s testimony exposed you as not being men of your word, and you STILL expect SUFC not to have pursued you further? Do you have any logic in your thinking? Do you live by any code of moral standards? Or is it just a case of “Hey! It’s a jungle out there!” and each looks after their own interests as best they can? You really can’t have it both ways.
*Firstly, how can you presume to know what WH fans feel about things ? WH abided by the decision delivered by the panel. SU didn’t as it didn’t suit them. Quite understandably they questioned the original decision and it was determined that the decision was arrived at fairly. Still not happy you carried on. As mentioned previously, the PL teams agree to abide by decisions made by arbitrations etc as part of their membership of the league. SU did not. If a points deduction had been decreed you would have expected WH to abide by that decision wouldn’t you ? It appears that in your eyes WH have decided their own punishment. I’ll ask again, what do you believe a fair punishment would have been and under what reasoning ? I’m interested to see you mention not being able to have it both ways. Please elaborate as to where/why you think WH have had it both ways?
WickersleyBlade
March 29th, 2009 | 9:23 am
I have to say after that deranged outburst, with not a shred of truth or reality in it, you’ve made our case PERFECTLY.
I’d be very careful about what you say about Mr McCabe…..perilously close to libel.
I will therefore say it again:
McCabe is a liar, the lie is that Sheffield United were relegated because of a contraqctual offence at another club. He, Whelan and Al Fayad (oh what a lovely bunch of characters) saw this as a way to try to avoid relegation at West Ham’s expense a kind of losers cartel.
McCabe is a hypocrite with no interest in justice or any other altruistic goals. If he had any interest in fair play and justice and the merit of his case he would have allowed it to go to CAS. He knows full well that the FA Arbitration panel’s verdict would have been thrown out. So we have a legal system which allows him to go on and appealing every verdict until someone is daft enough to listen, and then fails to allow the victim of his litigation the right of appeal. Before and during each hearing telling the press what a compelling case he has on a daily basis, thereby attempting to prejudice the outcome.
McCabe has obviously learned the lesson of Dr. Goebels that if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it.
I showed a copy of the Griffiths ruling to a barrister friend and he thought the verdict a joke.
This is rather similar to trying to nail jelly to the wall, but:
If you have a crash in your car through negligence then you will be fined. If your negligence causes damage to somebody else you, or your insurance company, compensate the victim. End of case. That would have been OK.
“Six, 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.”
Why are the players and fans of WHU a special case? The players and fans of SUFC knew from day one that fighting relegation would be our lot. Where is the difference? If you work for crooks, does that make any difference? Not to anybody else, but apparently it does to the PL and WHU.
AFTER the judgement your club, already let off incredibly lightly, continued the unlawful arrangement over Tevez’ registration, and as we all know but only non-WHU zealots deny, he was the difference in the run-in. It does not matter that we were awful – we admit that – but if I have a round of golf with somebody and I score 120 and he scores 72, if he has the wrong number of clubs in his bag the rules say he forfeits the game. Clubs that escape relegation by the skin of their teeth have been known to progress, like Wigain and…er…WHU. That chance has been denied us.
If you were our chairman, you, judging from your remarks, would have meekly accepted that your club had been relegated even though you knew they had acted outside the law? I don’t think so.
If you wish to be as diligent as Mr McCabe then why haven’t your club pursued SUFC and Watford? The answer is actually quite simple: there is no case to answer. The “Kabba case” and every other smear your supporters have used is a pathetic attempt to cover your tracks with smoke. If it is important, pursue it instead of talking about it. The reason you don’t is that it is a red herring and an attempt to find a stone to throw at us.
Your club is owned by a criminal, and dealt with an agent tainted by pending corruption charges in South America. South America? Must be pretty drastic if somewhere as upright as Brazil thinks you are corrupt. You daren’t reveal your accounts. Why?
How have WHU had it both ways? Because you talk glibly about wanting to take things forward football-wise. So do SUFC. But you cheated and are doing the taking forward in the PL. Lovely jubbly! I’m sure your consciences, assuming you’ve got one between you, are all crystal clear.
“Clubs that escape relegation by the skin of their teeth have been known to progress, like Wigain and…er…WHU. That chance has been denied us. ”
Yes that’s true, if only you had been good enough there is no telling what could have happened. You could ask Griffiths I suppose.
““Six, we have considered the position of the players and the fans”
Yes one of SEVEN points.
“if he has the wrong number of clubs in his bag the rules say he forfeits the game.”
The rules of the FA panel included a record fine which was given. We weren’t playing under golf rules.
“WHU zealots deny, he was the difference in the run-in.”
Some may, you can’t tell unless you have access to alternative realities like the FA panel, but it is irrelevant as he was ALWAYS our legally.registered player.
“AFTER the judgement your club, already let off incredibly lightly”
We were given a world record fine. It is only a matter of opinion if it was a light sentence or not. I think, with some justification, that had there been a points deduction it would have been turned over on appeal like the Spurs case some years back.
“why haven’t your club pursued SUFC and Watford? ”
It’s not our business to pursue them (same as it should have been none of your business what the PL panel dished out to West Ham), the cases are of value in highlighting the hypocrisy of McCabe.
I will now sue my next door neighbour who was recently given a non-custodial sentence at the Crown Court, thus denying me the opportunity to have an affair with his wife.
And as yet, no WHU supporter has said what they would have done if the situation had been EXACTLY the reverse (i.e. if our Chief Executive and owner had behaved exactly as yours did, including telling lies to the PL which is undenied) and you were in our shoes. No insults, no attempts at point-scoring, just answer the question:
If Sheffield United had behaved exactly as WHU did throughout that season, down to every last single detail, and WHU had been relegated, what would you have expected your club to do?
No mud-slinging, no other questions or issues, just that one: what would you have expected your club to do.
This is rather similar to trying to nail jelly to the wall, but:
* You’re telling me. It’s worth a try though.
“Six, 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.”
Why are the players and fans of WHU a special case? The players and fans of SUFC knew from day one that fighting relegation would be our lot. Where is the difference? If you work for crooks, does that make any difference? Not to anybody else, but apparently it does to the PL and WHU.
*WB. Why is this (again) the only one of the seven reasons you chaps mention. WH have never believed themselves to be a special case to my knowledge. Your point about the fans of SU is the most valid reason I’ve seen on your ‘side’. The problem we seem to be having with our discussion is that you (as in SU) are under the incorrect impression that WH have/had some kind of influence over the PL panel who arbitrated in the first case. Where does this impression come from ? That they didn’t give WH the penalty SU (and the other 2 clubs) felt was justifiable ? You must have missed another of my questions as I asked what you believed a just penalty would have been and how it would have been arrived at. I’d guess you’d say a points deduction. That the panel didn’t give that is NOT WH’s doing. WH provided paperwork to the PL that the _PL_ checked and said was ok. Again the PL have ok’d Tevez. I put it to you again. What difference do you believe there to be between the ‘oral cuddles’ alleged with Duxbury and the non-contractual ‘gentlemens agreement’ between SU / Watford ? If the contract hadn’t been terminated (between WH & Joorabchian) why did said shady bloke start proceedings against WH ?
and as we all know but only non-WHU zealots deny, he was the difference in the run-in.
*So Tevez played in goal and all across the back line. He was also tricky down both flanks whilst being the midfield dynamo and the creative spark there as well. He was outstanding in the ‘Sheringham’ role playing just behind himself. Sorry this is just wrong. I’ve played / watched footy for 34 years now and have never seen an individual player being the only reason a team wins. I used to play for the West Ham Internet team. We won a tournament in Leicester and I scored the only goal in the game. Did I have the most influence in the game ? or was it that our defence shut out any attacks the Coventry team could muster therefore allowing us to put pressure on their defence. Was it the bloke who passed to me so I (in Brooking-esque fashion I must add) could turn 2 defenders and slot it past the goalie ? It was the team effort mate.
Simply by definition of football being a team game each member of that team has an influence on the game. So, using the same logic as you’ve just used Jagielka was the most influential player in the SU/Wigan game. Therefore the reason SU went down was Jagielka forgetting he was playing footy and not basketball.
It does not matter that we were awful – we admit that – but if I have a round of golf with somebody and I score 120 and he scores 72, if he has the wrong number of clubs in his bag the rules say he forfeits the game. Clubs that escape relegation by the skin of their teeth have been known to progress, like Wigain and…er…WHU. That chance has been denied us.
*How can it not matter that you were awful ? You (and any other club) are masters of your own destiny during a season. How can you abdicate any responsibility for SU’s final league position over the length of a 38 game season ? Maybe if Neil Warnock had not rested some players in the Man U game you’d have won. Maybe if Liverpool had not rested players vrs. Fulham they’d have won. Maybe if Ashton hadn’t broken his ankle on England duty we’d have finished 3rd or 6th or 20th. Who can say. How do we define the ‘influence’ a player has in a game or over a season ?
If you were our chairman, you, judging from your remarks, would have meekly accepted that your club had been relegated even though you knew they had acted outside the law? I don’t think so.
*I can only answer a hypothetical question hypothetically. If I was your chairman I wouldn’t have the cheek to bang the drum of fairness yet not be fair. I, personally, would have questioned the process as SU did but abided by the independent panels adjudication. I would have done this because it’s what I agreed to upon becoming a member of the PL. I might not have liked or agreed with the outcome but I wouldn’t strike out for myself. If that’s being meek (as in abiding to the rules signed up to before taking membership) then don’t ask me to be your chairman.
If you wish to be as diligent as Mr McCabe then why haven’t your club pursued SUFC and Watford?
*A question I’d like the club to answer as well. My opinion is that as there was no ‘paperwork’ saying he can’t play in that game then it’s difficult to prove. That both SU and Watford admitted that an agreement was in place on their own media suggests to me that there is a case in ‘spirit’. WH certainly didn’t have anything to do with SU/Watfords websites. Neither did the PL. I also think the PL wanted to steer well clear of the problems 3rd party influence via loan agreements would throw up. Personally, I believe loans should not happen between clubs in the same league.
The answer is actually quite simple: there is no case to answer. The “Kabba case” and every other smear your supporters have used is a pathetic attempt to cover your tracks with smoke. If it is important, pursue it instead of talking about it. The reason you don’t is that it is a red herring and an attempt to find a stone to throw at us.
*Please see above. Well, you would view it like that wouldn’t you. Why did the Watford/SU websites say it then ?
I don’t think BG wants to follow it any more. I don’t think he cares. He wants to sell. An article I’ve seen today suggests the auditors wanted something more ‘solid’ (as in any provision to be paid to SU) for the accounts to be signed off. A potential £0 to £45m was too much for them to see as ok.
Your club is owned by a criminal, and dealt with an agent tainted by pending corruption charges in South America. South America? Must be pretty drastic if somewhere as upright as Brazil thinks you are corrupt. You daren’t reveal your accounts. Why?
*WB. No doubt you’ll disagree, but I think these constant cheap shots detract from any positives your viewpoint has. You’ve consistently ‘slagged’ WH as a whole off. No doubt you think this is just. Please say if I’ve miss-interpreted your words. What I (and others) have tried to achieve is a debate around the PL’s arbitration findings. It’s opinion as to whether the findings are reasonable.
How have WHU had it both ways? Because you talk glibly about wanting to take things forward football-wise. So do SUFC. But you cheated and are doing the taking forward in the PL. Lovely jubbly! I’m sure your consciences, assuming you’ve got one between you, are all crystal clear.
*But WH paid a fine mate. They admitted to the PL what the previous regime had done. It’s in the 7 points posted above. Some people think the fine was too much, some think it was right some think it should be more some think it should have been points. WH have had nothing both ways WB. We only stayed up because we accumulated enough points over the season to stay up.
Oh my god! The bloke who keeps changing the agenda to fit his own emotionally juvenile crappy view accuses West Ham supporter of trying to nail jelly! That has got to be the most hypocritical statement on this board. The bloke is a first class pillock lads. You won’t get anywhere with a bloke who metamorphosis his argument with emotionally charged garbage all the time. It’s a tabloid brain mentality. Give it up, you’re wasting your time.
And as yet, no WHU supporter has said what they would have done if the situation had been EXACTLY the reverse (i.e. if our Chief Executive and owner had behaved exactly as yours did……..
I, or any other West Ham fan, could not possibly say what we would have, should have done. I believe that teams are relegated promoted or win titles on footballing merit alone. I agree with a previous poster who said that West Ham fans should be embarassed, but Sheffield United fans should be ashamed. I would like to think that is what I would feel if we were in your position.
WickersleyBlade
And as yet, no WHU supporter has said what they would have done if the situation had been EXACTLY the reverse (i.e. if our Chief Executive and owner had behaved exactly as yours did, including telling lies to the PL which is undenied) and you were in our shoes. No insults, no attempts at point-scoring, just answer the question:
* Ok, hypothetically speaking. As you are asking for my opinion I’d have wanted WH to ask if the judgement had been arrived at in the correct manner. If it had I’d have accepted it. My nature is to not make a judgement until I’ve got as much info as possible (much to the Mrs. chagrin sometimes). I’d have tried to look at it dispassionately (this is due to my analytical background) and, with a level of information I perceived acceptable, come to what I felt was right. I understand if this seems ‘weird’, football is much about passion, but, you asked what I would have done.
If Sheffield United had behaved exactly as WHU did throughout that season, down to every last single detail, and WHU had been relegated, what would you have expected your club to do?
No mud-slinging, no other questions or issues, just that one: what would you have expected your club to do.
* As above. I’d have expected them to abide by the rules they agreed to when joining the PL. Please remember you asked what I’d have wanted to have been done. I don’t speak for any other WH fan.
My previous comment should have read:
I don’t believe that you, your owner, your supporters in the Press and everyone else connected with the club would have acted any differently from Kevin mcCabe and the fans of SUFC.
Tor, you have abused me in several different ways, in varying degrees of offensiveness. I’ll content myself with one “cheap shot”: you are a liar.
Ashamed? I think you are confusing the word with “vindicated”.
Tor
March 31st, 2009 | 10:27 pm
Oh my god! The bloke who keeps changing the agenda to fit his own emotionally juvenile crappy view accuses West Ham supporter of trying to nail jelly! That has got to be the most hypocritical statement on this board. The bloke is a first class pillock lads. You won’t get anywhere with a bloke who metamorphosis his argument with emotionally charged garbage all the time. It’s a tabloid brain mentality. Give it up, you’re wasting your time.
Just about sums it up.
I’ll content myself with one “cheap shot”: you are a liar.
There you go. That’s all I need to know about your brain in order to know I’d be wasting my time with you. Everything I’ve said has been an opinion about you based on your emotionally charged meanderings. What I have said has to be true logically because it is MY view, not objective ergo it cannot contain a lie.
What I will also add about you is that you are a nasty piece of work, desperate to scrape any barrel you can find in order to fuel your hatred for West Ham which is based on emotional garbage. Character assassination and obfuscation are your main tools. You can’t discuss with that modus operandi because it’s like a chameleon that keeps changing to suit itself i.e. a tabloid mentality.
Will I reciprocate and trash your owner and fans? No, I don’t need to. McCabe’s lawyer has been very clever by driving a wedge between the FA and the PL. The result has seen a further fine being levied. Will it end there? Yes, for us. But memories will be long by those authorities that have been manipulated against their will by a shrewd operator whose persistence has taken the game into an area it could well do without. You’ll get your comeuppance eventually.
West Ham have given the world Moore, Hurst, Peters who helped England win their only World Cup. Over the years there have been wonderful players like Sir Trevor Brooking and many others. Even in the present day their acadamy has produced a fair percentage of the England team. In last year’s UEFA cup final there were no less than six West Ham acadamy players on the field. We invented 4 – 5 – 1 and one touch football and many other tactical moves such as the near post glancing header. I know that we have not had much in the way of silverware but we are not a big club (don’t believe the conspiracy thearies of the Holts and McCabes).
I am personally proud of the contribution that we have made to English and World football. I am proud of the loyal support who turn up through thick and thin. I do not in anyway condone what the old board did over Tevez. The punishment should have been the end of it, but this has gone on and on because Sheffield United could not accept responsibility for their own inadequacy. To further their dishonest and hypocritical ends they have magnified and embelished their lies to drag the name of our club through the mire. This whole affair has turned out to be a great injustice to West Ham who have been the only victims in this scurrilous litigation.
Mr McCabe’s lawyer has done what any competent legal representative should have done: presented his client’s case in detail and accurately, leaving no stone unturned. Since then WHU have engaged in an orgy of self-pity and deceit, attempting to smear Mr McCabe and SUFC in any way they can. We have had to endure the piffle of the “Steve Kabba Affair” and then the “Matthew Spring Affair” and then the libellous “Phil Jagielka Affair” which you can only read about on message boards as it is criminally libellous and no newspaper would touch it with the proverbial long stick as it would bankrupt them.
Those who say that WHU are in some way the victims and that SUFC are the villains of the piece are suffering a ludicrous delusion. The signing of the two Argentinians was an attempt to steal a march on the rest of the clubs in the PL. WHU were in fact happy to act as a shop window for these players, derive benefit from their presence and then stand by as the pair were sold on. The owner of WHU wasn’t interested in buying a football club with a great tradition; he was interested in the massive injection of funds from Sky TV which was due the following season. It was a purely financial arrangement. Because of his criminal record and his non-football background, he needed a front man, one Eggert Magnusson. Why did Eggert look so miserable when WHU had such a dismal season? Because he knew his boss’s plans – and therefore his own rake-off – would be shredded if WHU were relegated. If you believe that these men had a care in the world for the football club and its history then you are lying to yourself in the teeth of all the evidence.
Scott Duxbury is still in post. That is quite remarkable when you consider that the real truth about contractual “oral cuddles” only came out when Mr Shear’s testimony was heard. It was not volunteered by WHU – are you saying they would have owned up to the fact that they had reneged on their word to the PL Inquiry and that consequently the legality of Tevez’ registration was unsound for the relegation run in if Mr Shear hadn’t, to lapse into the vernacular, “dropped you right in it”? If you claim that they would then you are lying.
WHU’s accounts remain hidden for the year because Deloitte’s, their auditors, would not sign the club off as a going concern with the possibility of a huge payout – considerably more than £26.5m accepted by Mr McCabe – being awarded by your other bogey man, Lord Griffiths. In other words, you would have been trading illegally and would have gone out of business unless you adopted the trick of shortening your trading year by 2 days and buying yourself some more time. You played brinkmanship with Kevin McCabe, but at the last minute Duxbury was the one who blinked. He paid up. Now we have to endure more spin, about how everybody will be suing everybody else for every tackle – cue the attempts made by WHU fans and their media donkeys like Martin Samuel to arraign Chris Morgan. I have e-mailed Martin Samuel with a list of tackles he might like to pursue, but have not heard a reply. I also said that despite the police having no intention of prosecuting him and no further sanctions being deemed necessary by the FA, if he had a case to answer then he should be prosecuted, as should Kevin Nolan. I stand by that: if Morgan committed a crime let him be tried and punished.
Throughout all of this, the synthetic indignation of WHU fans has at the same time been hilarious and pathetic. The hubris of the signing of the two players followed by a relegation fight is matched only by the staggering hypocrisy of the WHU fans attempting to smear an utterly decent man in Kevin McCabe, an honest and well-run club in SUFC and the supporters who were officially deemed to have less importance than those of WHU, in order to conceal their guilt.
Finally we come to your Cartesian view of truth. By that definition we should be grateful to have you in our midst as you seem to believe that you have a monopoly on truth and knowledge. You also seem to be somewhat schizoid in your personality, as your offensive rudeness suddenly turns into (misguided) erudition. Time was when playing WHU was a game between two clubs with working class roots and fans who were basically the same people with different geography. No longer. The only thing you have correct in your worthless peroration is that I now feel only intense bitterness towards WHU and all associated with the club, and in your case contempt for a liar who would not recognise the concept of honesty were it to be delivered on a plate. Stay where you belong, on the open sewer that is the WHU supporters’ message board “Knees Up Mother Brown” where other worthies like you wish Mr MCabe dead, and call us “Northern monkeys” and “wife-beaters” – I’m sure a clever and educated man like yourself can justify that and the other vile abuse there philosophically. After all, “Cogito ergo sum.”
No moderation?
My post 57 was in reply to the abuse posted by Tor, but the other poster can select the parts that apply to him as well.
No moderation?
What’s up? Can’t take the heat? All I’ve done is reciprocate the abuse within your posts aimed at personnel within our club but it goes wider than that. It seems you have a general hatred for London clubs thinking they get preferential treatment. 10 out of 10 for creativity.
I’d get treatment for all that hatred because it will effect your health eventually.
Wittgenstein? Not a chance. Like you he was also píssing in the wind.
And the sentimental stuff is a red herring. I’m proud to say I’ve seen all the players you mention, and we had to endure Martin Peters as a manager. Bobby Moore is one of my footballing heroes, alongside many other great players I have seen in nearly 46 years of watching Sheffield United. I wasn’t quite as impressed by Lee Bowyer, Ian Dowie, Julian Dicks or Tomas Repka so enetering into an icon contest has its pitfalls…
Finally we come to your Cartesian view of truth. By that definition we should be grateful to have you in our midst as you seem to believe that you have a monopoly on truth and knowledge. You also seem to be somewhat schizoid in your personality, as your offensive rudeness suddenly turns into (misguided) erudition.
Physician: Heal thyself!
Stay where you belong, on the open sewer that is the WHU supporters’ message board “Knees Up Mother Brown” where other worthies like you wish Mr MCabe dead, and call us “Northern monkeys” and “wife-beaters” – I’m sure a clever and educated man like yourself can justify that and the other vile abuse there philosophically. After all, “Cogito ergo sum.”
Ever been on a Sheffield United site? I have and the comments are at just the same level.
“Cogito ergo sum.”
Nice bit of schoolboy latin, but in your case I’m not sure about the cogito bit.
No Moderation?:
Censorship, the refuge of the fascist.
Overall far too much rubbish in the post to comment in detail, but your Goebelesque portrait of the lying hypocrite McCabe brought a tear to my eye.
I will no longer comment on the fine details of this case as the orthodox Sheffield view seems to be the only one anybody wants to hear. If however you read 8ish posts you may see there is an alternative view to your own drivel.
In conclusion the only good thing that has come out of this is that both the teams have remained in their appropriate leagues.
….and then the libellous “Phil Jagielka Affair” which you can only read about on message boards as it is criminally libellous and no newspaper would touch it with the proverbial long stick as it would bankrupt them
Is that about a bloke who was playing for a team too rubbish for the PL, handled for no reason in his own box thereby dooming his team to relegation, and then in true Sheffield United fashion attempt to blame others?
Good old Ray! Straight in, both feet, no brain. You and the other one deserve each other. I hope your club goes into administration as a result of not being able to find a buyer before the end of July, that Deloitte’s still refuse to sign off your accounts and you receive a further deduction for trading illegally and that FINALLY the few who don’t already know it realise that you are the most corrupt club in the country, run by crooks and supported by fick Cockneys wot have no idea whose farvers are whose cos theyve lost count of har menny geezers have had it away wiv Mum and they all ‘ave social workers to ‘elp them understand ‘ow to draw their benefit. Wot a diamond geezer that Reggie Kray was! Let’s ‘ave anuvver whelk! Cor blimey! Alf Garnett? Sahnd, mate, totally sahnd!
Or, alternatively, perhaps we could stick to the fact that your upright, honest and completely trustworthy club had to pay us £26.5 million because you cheated. What’s funnier, you had to cheat to be as bad as us! Nil carborundum illegitimae!
les marteaux
Just for information: Cartesian refers to the philosopher Descartes, whose maxim “cogito ergo sum” translates as “I think, therefore I am”. Only a monumental numbskull such as yourself would dismiss it as “a nice bit of schoolboy Latin”. Non sanguiniste bonum, old chap. What’s your degree in again?
And just to prove that you’re as silly as you seem, the “No moderation” post was not an attempt to censor you – God knows, you’re far too funny for me to want to stop you – but was a message to Dan Vout who runs this site because I posted my reply and it was held up in a queue with the line “Your comment is awaiting moderation” above it until Dan got round to it. Ask him, if you don’t believe me. Ah well, back to being a fascist…PMSL.