Had you heard about this Wanderlust?
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 26,00.html
I thought they were relegated because they were shit but obviously not.
Premierleague 08-09
-
Wanderlust
- Legend
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:27 pm
- Location: Hua Hin
Yeah I have seen it and knew it was coming, but didn't want to bore the rest of you with the continuing Tevez Saga. However, now you have brought it up, if what has been already reported about this arbitration is true, it is opening a nasty can of worms, not just for West Ham but the whole of football. Basically, apparently the arbitration panel have decided that having Tevez playing for us was worth 'at least an extra 3 points' during the season. This is obviously a very convenient figure, as it is precisely the number above Shit United that we finished in that season, with them having a better goal difference. It seems that the lawyers/judges on the three man panel are able to replay games in their heads and conclude what the results should have been without Tevez, while ignoring the fact that earlier in the season with him (and sometimes Mascherano) in the team we went on the longest losing run in our entire history. They also appear to have ignored the fact that Shit United had a 10 point advantage over West Ham coming into the last three months of the season and managed to lose all but one of their remaining fixtures, with that one being their win against West Ham with Tevez in the side! Aside from the fact that it is a team game, thus impossible to go back over a match and determine what would have happened if one player was replaced with another, given that the season before Tevez arrived West Ham finished 9th, and the season after he left we finished 10th, I would say that the evidence points to the fact that his and Mascherano's arrival were a disadvantage.
As you rightly say Shit United were relegated because they were and are a woeful team (beaten 6-0 by Arsenal's reserves last night), with a hypocritical, nasty attitude - the hypocrisy is that they sold Steve Kabba to Watford in the January transfer window of that season, and he played every game for Watford until they faced Shit United, when he inexplicably didn't play. Before the match Warnock stated that he had checked the terms of the deal and Kabba was not allowed to play against them, which latterly was investigated and discovered there was no such clause in the deal, so this was apparently a 'gentleman's agreement'. Watford lost 1-0 incidentally. i hope West Ham push this all the way as they have already been punished under the PL rules to the tune of a record £5.5 million, and we are now into the territory of allowing any team that feels hard done by on the pitch (e.g Reading against Watford in last weekend's game) going to arbitration to get compensation; we might even be going down the road of teams suing refs, or players suing clubs. The whole thing is a farce. The rule that West Ham broke was a technicality, which essentially was that the deal for Tevez and Mascherano had a clause saying that they could be sold to another club for £2 million if MSI (the owners of the players) felt that was the best thing; hence they determined the players' future and not the club that held their registration to play. If this had happened (the players being sold) the only people disadvantaged were West Ham, but the rule was broken and we took our punishment. What has been argued at the arbitration was that West Ham stated that the clause had been removed in line with the PL ruling, while they had a verbal agreement to keep it intact - a gentleman's agreement you might say.
Quite how this differs from loan agreements between clubs I really can't fathom, except that the owners of the players was a media company rather than a football club.
The best outcome right now would be for the panel to deliberate on compensation for Shit United and for it to be a paltry sum to take into account their own culpability for their demise - I'd say 1p would do it - they are asking in excess of £30 million.
As you rightly say Shit United were relegated because they were and are a woeful team (beaten 6-0 by Arsenal's reserves last night), with a hypocritical, nasty attitude - the hypocrisy is that they sold Steve Kabba to Watford in the January transfer window of that season, and he played every game for Watford until they faced Shit United, when he inexplicably didn't play. Before the match Warnock stated that he had checked the terms of the deal and Kabba was not allowed to play against them, which latterly was investigated and discovered there was no such clause in the deal, so this was apparently a 'gentleman's agreement'. Watford lost 1-0 incidentally. i hope West Ham push this all the way as they have already been punished under the PL rules to the tune of a record £5.5 million, and we are now into the territory of allowing any team that feels hard done by on the pitch (e.g Reading against Watford in last weekend's game) going to arbitration to get compensation; we might even be going down the road of teams suing refs, or players suing clubs. The whole thing is a farce. The rule that West Ham broke was a technicality, which essentially was that the deal for Tevez and Mascherano had a clause saying that they could be sold to another club for £2 million if MSI (the owners of the players) felt that was the best thing; hence they determined the players' future and not the club that held their registration to play. If this had happened (the players being sold) the only people disadvantaged were West Ham, but the rule was broken and we took our punishment. What has been argued at the arbitration was that West Ham stated that the clause had been removed in line with the PL ruling, while they had a verbal agreement to keep it intact - a gentleman's agreement you might say.
Quite how this differs from loan agreements between clubs I really can't fathom, except that the owners of the players was a media company rather than a football club.The best outcome right now would be for the panel to deliberate on compensation for Shit United and for it to be a paltry sum to take into account their own culpability for their demise - I'd say 1p would do it - they are asking in excess of £30 million.
-
Wanderlust
- Legend
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:27 pm
- Location: Hua Hin
This is a much better written piece in the Times that sums up what i was trying to say!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 812559.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 812559.ece
Its a great post Wanderlust,as you say you paid your fiscal penalty,over £5million pound fine,for breaking the rules,but tell that to Luton and Leeds,they all suffered points deduction.Shamefully you did not and this is everyones bugbear.The league failed to adjudicate the problem correctly,we all feel, because WH have too much stroke in premier league matters.There was a clear cut case at the time of infringement for a points deduction but league bottled out.Have no particular rant against WH,I actually think its a great London club and really the only one now capable of nurturing English players into the league but you got off too lightly
-
Wanderlust
- Legend
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:27 pm
- Location: Hua Hin
In PL and FA rules, points deductions are mandatory only for clubs that go into administration (which is what happened to Leeds and Luton among others, and is a completely different and more serious offence), while in the PL only there exists this obscure rule about allowing 3rd parties to have a material influence on the team, and one of a number of possible punishments for breaking that rule is points deduction, so as there had been no precedent for this (with that rule being added with ownership of the club as a whole in mind and not one player) the PL decided on a record fine, higher than that given to Chelsea for tapping up for example. Given that the only people who would be adversely affected if the player is sold under the clause that broke the rule were West Ham, I don't see how it actually effects any other clubs - Tevez was correctly registered with the PL the whole time, and the clause in his contract was not believed to break PL rules when he and Mascherano were signed. As it turns out it did, so the new owners of the club told the PL about it and then the shit hit the fan. These clauses are common in other countries, particularly South America, and really are no different from a loan agreement where the player can be recalled at any time.
Where you get the idea that West Ham receive favourable treatment from the authorities I have no idea - I have shown you in this post that this case was adjudicated entirely within the PL rules and that we received a fine higher than any club in history, so please point out when West Ham have been favoured in the past? The offence we got fined for was a technical one of contracts, as well as one of our idiot executives failing to inform the PL correctly - don't believe the hype and spin put on this by the tabloids and particularly the Daily Mail, whose chief journalist on this just happens to be Neil Warnock's ghost writer. Sheffield United were relegated because they weren't good enough, and only needed a draw against Wigan on the final day of the season to stay up, but the suspicion among West Ham fans is that those two teams thought we would lose at Man Utd and connived to try to ensure they both stayed up, hence the inexplicable handball by Jagielka to give Wigan a penalty.
West Ham did not get off lightly, and a fine was appropriate, and this arbitration has been a joke; whatever happens the PL decision on the fine is irreversible and so is SU's relegation - they keep bleating about justice but the truth is that it is all about money.
Where you get the idea that West Ham receive favourable treatment from the authorities I have no idea - I have shown you in this post that this case was adjudicated entirely within the PL rules and that we received a fine higher than any club in history, so please point out when West Ham have been favoured in the past? The offence we got fined for was a technical one of contracts, as well as one of our idiot executives failing to inform the PL correctly - don't believe the hype and spin put on this by the tabloids and particularly the Daily Mail, whose chief journalist on this just happens to be Neil Warnock's ghost writer. Sheffield United were relegated because they weren't good enough, and only needed a draw against Wigan on the final day of the season to stay up, but the suspicion among West Ham fans is that those two teams thought we would lose at Man Utd and connived to try to ensure they both stayed up, hence the inexplicable handball by Jagielka to give Wigan a penalty.
West Ham did not get off lightly, and a fine was appropriate, and this arbitration has been a joke; whatever happens the PL decision on the fine is irreversible and so is SU's relegation - they keep bleating about justice but the truth is that it is all about money.
If it's ajudged that West Ham fielded illegable (if thats the right word?) players and broke whatever rules then I think its only right the receive a big fine. 30M Pounds is a bit strong though.
There's no doubting Tevez made the difference for West Ham and kept them up but the authorities shouldn't be saying "it was worth 3 points" and "Sheff Utd lost 30M in revenue" etc, just hand down a fine that is in relevant to the offence.
If it was the other way round West Ham would be up in arms.
SJ
There's no doubting Tevez made the difference for West Ham and kept them up but the authorities shouldn't be saying "it was worth 3 points" and "Sheff Utd lost 30M in revenue" etc, just hand down a fine that is in relevant to the offence.
If it was the other way round West Ham would be up in arms.
SJ
-
Wanderlust
- Legend
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:27 pm
- Location: Hua Hin
SJ,
This isn't a fine we are talking about here - that was already levied by the PL and amounted to £5.5 million - this is a compensation claim by Sheffield United for their relegation, which they were refused permission by the law courts to pursue that way, so instead they pushed for this arbitration process currently ongoing. The three 'experts' on this panel are the ones who have decided that if Tevez hadn't been playing that West Ham would have had 'at least 3 fewer points'. And they base this solely on the testimony of the Daily Telegraph's chief sports journalist, Henry Winter, and didn't hear testimony from any other 'expert witnesses' on this issue. Anyone who follows football knows that you cannot easily predict the outcome of matches, and to actually try to visualise a result after the removal of one player to be replaced by another is just preposterous. West Ham could theoretically argue on that basis that the FA are then liable, as we did not have the services of one Dean Ashton that whole season because he got injured while on England duty - he might have scored more goals in crucial matches that we lost that season. And for the record, Tevez was never ineligible to play - the PL sanctioned his registration and repeated that his eligibility was never an issue when they made their ruling. And one final thing - over the whole season we lost many more matches than we won with Tevez involved, so maybe the arbitration panel should change those results as well? Then of course another team might have won the league and different teams qualified for Europe - it is just not the right way to approach this.
This isn't a fine we are talking about here - that was already levied by the PL and amounted to £5.5 million - this is a compensation claim by Sheffield United for their relegation, which they were refused permission by the law courts to pursue that way, so instead they pushed for this arbitration process currently ongoing. The three 'experts' on this panel are the ones who have decided that if Tevez hadn't been playing that West Ham would have had 'at least 3 fewer points'. And they base this solely on the testimony of the Daily Telegraph's chief sports journalist, Henry Winter, and didn't hear testimony from any other 'expert witnesses' on this issue. Anyone who follows football knows that you cannot easily predict the outcome of matches, and to actually try to visualise a result after the removal of one player to be replaced by another is just preposterous. West Ham could theoretically argue on that basis that the FA are then liable, as we did not have the services of one Dean Ashton that whole season because he got injured while on England duty - he might have scored more goals in crucial matches that we lost that season. And for the record, Tevez was never ineligible to play - the PL sanctioned his registration and repeated that his eligibility was never an issue when they made their ruling. And one final thing - over the whole season we lost many more matches than we won with Tevez involved, so maybe the arbitration panel should change those results as well? Then of course another team might have won the league and different teams qualified for Europe - it is just not the right way to approach this.
Sorry I haven't read the details (should have done), I assumed it was a fine for the 'offence'.
Well I guess Sheff Utd are free to do what they like legally, but while West Ham 'may' have had an advantage it surely can not be proved beyong doubt that it was 3 points, 0 points, -3 points (as a.n.other striker might have got a hat-trick in every game) etc etc.
Will be interesting to see what the conclusion is.
SJ
Well I guess Sheff Utd are free to do what they like legally, but while West Ham 'may' have had an advantage it surely can not be proved beyong doubt that it was 3 points, 0 points, -3 points (as a.n.other striker might have got a hat-trick in every game) etc etc.
Will be interesting to see what the conclusion is.
SJ
-
Wanderlust
- Legend
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:27 pm
- Location: Hua Hin
It would hold up in court.
After Liverpools loss to Fulham.
"I didn't even know two of those that played for Liverpool at Fulham last week. (Good Manager then)
I'd never heard of them but when you are a foreign manager like Rafa Benitez,
you probably don't give two hoots about what Sheffield United think.
It's a long journey to Fulham, so the players are probably better off at home with their feet up.
It's the worst feeling of my career"
Neil Warnock (AKA Colin Wanker)
Maybe his team should have beat Wigan rather than him worrying about who Liverpool rested ahead of the Champs League.
After Liverpools loss to Fulham.
"I didn't even know two of those that played for Liverpool at Fulham last week. (Good Manager then)
I'd never heard of them but when you are a foreign manager like Rafa Benitez,
you probably don't give two hoots about what Sheffield United think.
It's a long journey to Fulham, so the players are probably better off at home with their feet up.
It's the worst feeling of my career"
Neil Warnock (AKA Colin Wanker)
Maybe his team should have beat Wigan rather than him worrying about who Liverpool rested ahead of the Champs League.
With five games to go Sheffield United should have been safe from relegation but they had a shocking finish to the season whereas all the other teams near the bottom (bar Watford) started battling and picking up points.
Even then Sheffield United only needed a draw at home to Wigan on the last day of the season to stay up.On the other hand,if Wigan didnt win they would be relegated instead.
I watched that game on Sky and Wigan won far more comfortably than the 2-1 scoreline suggests.Why,because they were a much better team and much more hungry for a positive result.
Sheffield United were relegated because they were not good enough....end of story.You cant put this down to Tevez.
In fact a much bigger reason could have been that they lost their main striker,Rob Hulse,with a broken leg towards the end of the season and had no adequate replacement.
Zidane
Even then Sheffield United only needed a draw at home to Wigan on the last day of the season to stay up.On the other hand,if Wigan didnt win they would be relegated instead.
I watched that game on Sky and Wigan won far more comfortably than the 2-1 scoreline suggests.Why,because they were a much better team and much more hungry for a positive result.
Sheffield United were relegated because they were not good enough....end of story.You cant put this down to Tevez.
In fact a much bigger reason could have been that they lost their main striker,Rob Hulse,with a broken leg towards the end of the season and had no adequate replacement.
Zidane
English Premier league 08 09
Seems Terry Venables turned down the Newcastle game by game offer, even at 100,000 pounds a game. Joe Kinnear reportedly taken the job.
-
redzonerocker
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: England
Re: English Premier league 08 09
apparently the latest is that the sheff utd players (10 of them) are preparing lawsuits for compensation from west ham 
my personal opinion is, they sufc should feel themselves exceptionally lucky to get what they have so far.
they were relegated because they weren't good enough over the whole season, not because of one or two games & individual players contributions.
we all know that the f.a. are a bunch of incompetent morons & they are certainly living up to their reputation with the way the case has been handled so far.
what next, referees & linesmen being sued for poor decisions costing the points that would effect the winning or losing of games & therefore affecting the issues of championships, cup finals, play offs & relegation
my personal opinion is, they sufc should feel themselves exceptionally lucky to get what they have so far.
they were relegated because they weren't good enough over the whole season, not because of one or two games & individual players contributions.
we all know that the f.a. are a bunch of incompetent morons & they are certainly living up to their reputation with the way the case has been handled so far.
what next, referees & linesmen being sued for poor decisions costing the points that would effect the winning or losing of games & therefore affecting the issues of championships, cup finals, play offs & relegation
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.