West Ham To Pay

[fatshaft]

You have to wonder why they ever 'won' the original case not to have points deducted, when every other decision has gone against them? Another massive howler from the FA.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7630777.stm

Sheffield United chairman Kevin McCabe has told BBC Radio 5 Live that an independent tribunal has ruled against West Ham over the Carlos Tevez affair.

 

McCabe said it would be "inappropriate" to discuss figures of compensation despite reports claiming the Hammers could be forced to pay

[s1dnk]

You have to wonder why they ever 'won' the original case not to have points deducted, when every other decision has gone against them? Another massive howler from the FA.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7630777.stm

Only

[fatshaft]

Only

[E-P-K]

The original

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

Is'nt West Ham Legend Trevor Brooking a VERY influential man at the FA, hence why West Ham got off lightly.

[Guest the shepherd]

Is'nt West Ham Legend Trevor Brooking a VERY influential man at the FA, hence why West Ham got off lightly.

Yes just like John Terry appears to be as well.

[Guest LondonScottish]

Yes just like John Terry appears to be as well.

 

 

Absolutely correct. Two almost identical scenarios.

[Guest the shepherd]

Jonh Terry must have had a direct influence on the outcome of his recent red card appeal at the FA by way of threatening not to represent his country as captain again if his appeal failed. Surprisingly, as if there was any doubt whatsoever, it succeeded and his red card for a blatant professional foul was rescinded . That was the point and comparison I was trying to make. West Ham were handed a random fine instead of having points deducted from them for failing to disclose all points reltaive to the transfer concerned, a rule that is set out by the FA. If indeed they had points deducted the would have ultimately lost their Premiership status at the end of that season. I am sure if other teams acted irregularly at this time they would have had points deducted but a certain air of influence by Trevor Brooking may have countered that.

[Guest LondonScottish]

Jonh Terry must have had a direct influence on the outcome of his recent red card appeal at the FA by way of threatening not to represent his country as captain again if his appeal failed. Surprisingly, as if there was any doubt whatsoever, it succeeded and his red card for a blatant professional foul was rescinded . That was the point and comparison I was trying to make. West Ham were handed a random fine instead of having points deducted from them for failing to disclose all points reltaive to the transfer concerned, a rule that is set out by the FA. If indeed they had points deducted the would have ultimately lost their Premiership status at the end of that season. I am sure if other teams acted irregularly at this time they would have had points deducted but a certain air of influence by Trevor Brooking may have countered that.

 

 

If you knew the rules, there is no such thing as a professional foul. Terry's offence was a yellow card, simple as that. Referee didn't see it that way, but with the use of video evidence it was plain for (almost) all to see. That is nothing whatsoever to do with influence.

[fatshaft]

If you knew the rules, there is no such thing as a professional foul. Terry's offence was a yellow card, simple as that. Referee didn't see it that way, but with the use of video evidence it was plain for (almost) all to see. That is nothing whatsoever to do with influence.

Takes us full circle again LS. Thing is in the refs opinion it was bad enough to be sent off, whereas the appeal panel felt that no sanction at all was more justified. Doubt many outside Bamford Bridge agree with that, just like the West Ham verdict, common sense seemed to disappear.

[rgudon]

If you knew the rules, there is no such thing as a professional foul. Terry's offence was a yellow card, simple as that. Referee didn't see it that way, but with the use of video evidence it was plain for (almost) all to see. That is nothing whatsoever to do with influence.

 

 

yeah there is - denying a goal scoring opportunity, just not called a prof foul anymore but the same thing. and his offence was clearly a red card, FA bottled it, w@nkers.

[Guest LondonScottish]

yeah there is - denying a goal scoring opportunity, just not called a prof foul anymore but the same thing. and his offence was clearly a red card, FA bottled it, w@nkers.

 

 

lol.......spoken from a true Red.

 

It wasn't a clear goalscoring opportunity. He wasn't the last defender and the challenge was more slanting towards rugby than football, but in the eyes of the rule-book a "clear goal scoring opportunity" wasn't denied.

 

 

And are you down here yet, or are Suisse keeping you waiting a wee bit longer? (off topic)

[rgudon]

lol.......spoken from a true Red.

 

It wasn't a clear goalscoring opportunity. He wasn't the last defender and the challenge was more slanting towards rugby than football, but in the eyes of the rule-book a "clear goal scoring opportunity" wasn't denied.

 

 

And are you down here yet, or are Suisse keeping you waiting a wee bit longer? (off topic)

 

Have you not seen Jo's pace, he would have steamed past carvalho and scored!!!

 

I am dowm permanently nxt week, job could be on a shaky nail already so I have heard...

[Guest LondonScottish]

Have you not seen Jo's pace, he would have steamed past carvalho and scored!!!

 

I am dowm permanently nxt week, job could be on a shaky nail already so I have heard...

 

 

The pace of the striker is still irrelevant to the decision. If theres still another defender it can't be a sending off.

[vanderark14]

lol.......spoken from a true Red.

 

It wasn't a clear goalscoring opportunity. He wasn't the last defender and the challenge was more slanting towards rugby than football, but in the eyes of the rule-book a "clear goal scoring opportunity" wasn't denied.

 

 

And are you down here yet, or are Suisse keeping you waiting a wee bit longer? (off topic)

 

which is why IMO it should have been a red. juts my opinion though.

 

P.S John Terry is a phud

[Guest the shepherd]

If you knew the rules, there is no such thing as a professional foul. Terry's offence was a yellow card, simple as that. Referee didn't see it that way, but with the use of video evidence it was plain for (almost) all to see. That is nothing whatsoever to do with influence.

[/quote

I must apologise for my lack of intelligence as I never knew there was no such thing as a professional foul anymore. I would like to think that the FA acted appropriately however at the appeal like you have said with use of video evidence but who is to say that was all that was used to revoke the original decision. We must agree to disagree on this one I am afraid.