West Ham Pay

[vanderark14]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5904470.ece

[minijc]

Load of sh*t, Sheffield just chanced their luck here and got affa lucky, the main thing for me that would have made it a worthy case would have been if he played against them and scored against them to put them down but they were sh*te, much worse than West ham over the season.

 

Just proves that the game is about money now and nothing else.

[Jocky Balboa]

Load of sh*t, Sheffield just chanced their luck here and got affa lucky, the main thing for me that would have made it a worthy case would have been if he played against them and scored against them to put them down but they were sh*te, much worse than West ham over the season.

 

Just proves that the game is about money now and nothing else.

 

I disagree. The League Table doesn't lie, as they say, but if you take away Tevez's goals in the latter stages of the season, West Ham would have been doomed. They broke the regulations, plain and simple. It's too late to change the relegation situation, but suitable financial compensation should be given. Maybe Sheff Utd. should be thinking of investing that wisely, so as to push for promotion next season.

[Dynamo]

I disagree. The League Table doesn't lie, as they say, but if you take away Tevez's goals in the latter stages of the season, West Ham would have been doomed. They broke the regulations, plain and simple. It's too late to change the relegation situation, but suitable financial compensation should be given. Maybe Sheff Utd. should be thinking of investing that wisely, so as to push for promotion next season.

 

 

Yea but were they not fined already? So why are they paying this now?

[fatshaft]

Yea but were they not fined already? So why are they paying this now?

This is part of the sum that Sheff Utd sued for. The original fine was payable to the FA.

[Guest LondonScottish]

Because Sheff Utd appealed over the heads of the FA due to the farcical decision they gave out. Sheff quite rightly won, FA screwed up big time

 

 

West Ham broke the rules, they knew they broke the rules, they stayed up because they broke the rules.

 

The FA bottled it. West Ham should have had points deducted and been fined. I wonder how much a certain Trevor Brooking had to do with them getting away with it?

 

Good luck and well done to Sheffield. A battle well won.

[woohoo]

Glad the majority of the forum sees sense! Everyone else I've spoken to in the real world about it thinks Sheff Utd are moaning pussies and its a nothing story.

 

West Ham signed a player illegally. Not just any player, but Carlos Teves, arguably one of the best in the world. His goals kept them up. Yes, Sheffield Utd should have done enough themselves, but at the end of the day 3 teams have to go down each season. And if West Ham stuck to the rules, they would have claimed that 3rd spot. Imo it is beyond any reasonable doubt that they would have gone down without Tevez.

 

At the time of the initial sh1tstorm, the easy and correct decision would have been to relegate West Ham and re-promote Sheffield Utd. I thought it was obvious and still do.

[bland_flabbis]

West Ham broke the rules, they knew they broke the rules, they stayed up because they broke the rules.

 

The FA bottled it. West Ham should have had points deducted and been fined. I wonder how much a certain Trevor Brooking had to do with them getting away with it?

 

Good luck and well done to Sheffield. A battle well won.

 

Given Tevez was never an ineligible player and given the likelihood that if the irregularities in his contract had been uncovered at the start of the season they would have just ironed them out they way they did at the end (I remember reading an article at the time which said something like 70% of contracts in the EPL have some irregularity in them which needs to be ironed out before a player is registered) there was never really a situation where Tevez wouldn't or shouldn't have played a game for West Ham. With that in mind, how can you justify a deduction of points? The league season was played out, no players were fielded without proper registration and at the end of it West Ham weren't in the bottom three.

 

The rules broken by West Ham all related to their conduct off the pitch (not disclosing documents, the specifics of his contract) so deducting points is tantamount to letting non-football matters have an influence on the final league placings. In the spirit of the game I think most people agree that a points deduction should only be used when an offence allows a team to acquire points unfairly (fielding an ineligible player, spending outwith their means, cancelling a game because they had a few injuries, etc.) and that wasn't the case with the Tevez issue. A financial penalty makes more sense from that perspective.

[Guest LondonScottish]

Given Tevez was never an ineligible player and given the likelihood that if the irregularities in his contract had been uncovered at the start of the season they would have just ironed them out they way they did at the end (I remember reading an article at the time which said something like 70% of contracts in the EPL have some irregularity in them which needs to be ironed out before a player is registered) there was never really a situation where Tevez wouldn't or shouldn't have played a game for West Ham. With that in mind, how can you justify a deduction of points? The league season was played out, no players were fielded without proper registration and at the end of it West Ham weren't in the bottom three.

 

The rules broken by West Ham all related to their conduct off the pitch (not disclosing documents, the specifics of his contract) so deducting points is tantamount to letting non-football matters have an influence on the final league placings. In the spirit of the game I think most people agree that a points deduction should only be used when an offence allows a team to acquire points unfairly (fielding an ineligible player, spending outwith their means, cancelling a game because they had a few injuries, etc.) and that wasn't the case with the Tevez issue. A financial penalty makes more sense from that perspective.

 

 

Why wasn't he ineligible? If he wasn't ineligible why did West Ham get fined

[fatshaft]

Given Tevez was never an ineligible player

I think you may be wrong there....

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...-deduction.html

West Ham languishing at the bottom of the Premiership saved them from a points deduction, Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor believes.

 

A points deduction would have sealed the club's drop into the Championship but they now retain hope of staying up.

"If West Ham were in a comfortable mid-table position I think there would have been points deducted as a deterrent," Taylor said. "But I think with a relegation battle blowing up it's fair justice and something West Ham will be relieved about - particularly if they stay up.

 

"Fans of other clubs may not be happy with the verdict but if you need to stay in a division because another club have been deducted points, it's not the sporting ethos you would want. I can't believe anyone would want to stay up that way."

 

Bury were kicked out of this season's FA Cup for fielding an ineligible player in the second round.

 

Taylor said: "A small club like Bury were thrown out over an ineligible player. The same approach could have been adopted here so I am sure West Ham are breathing a huge sigh of relief.

 

"But in fairness to the Premier League, this [punishment] is realistic. West Ham have not got off lightly, because it's a massive fine, but people would say it would have to be that size if there is no points deduction."

 

Taylor believes all clubs should learn from the case. "When West Ham signed the players from South America there were big questions raised and there is no smoke without fire - it looked very dodgy. You've got to be careful about the possibility of malpractice. You don't want individuals owning players, hawking them round the world and taking money out of the game."

[minijc]

See Leeds are now wanting money off of sheffield now, this whole saga is a joke.

[Guest LondonScottish]

See Leeds are now wanting money off of sheffield now, this whole saga is a joke.

 

 

Its a serious matter turned into a joke by the idiots at the FA.

[minijc]

Aye, but the reasons behind leeds wanting money are rather silly.

 

ALso a Swansea fan has just gave a great example of how they can now sue Warnock, Had sheffield not been relegated he would not have moved to Palace, Palace beat Swansea on saturday which may now cost Swansea a play off place so basically they could sue him for this. FANTASTIC.

[fatshaft]

Aye, but the reasons behind leeds wanting money are rather silly.

 

ALso a Swansea fan has just gave a great example of how they can now sue Warnock, Had sheffield not been relegated he would not have moved to Palace, Palace beat Swansea on saturday which may now cost Swansea a play off place so basically they could sue him for this. FANTASTIC.

Don't be bloody stupid. West Ham broke the rules, and becasue the FA didn't follow their own disciplinary rules that are meant to deal with the situation, Sheff Utd sued for what was effectively loss of earnings. It could be argued that it should have been the FA they sued perhaps, but as West Ham benefited in the way of getting those said earnings, hence they were the target. There is nothing in the rules about players and managers moving legitamately between clubs, think for yourself instead of listening to some pea brain who pretty clearly can't string a coherent thought together.

[bland_flabbis]

Why wasn't he ineligible? If he wasn't ineligible why did West Ham get fined

[Guest LondonScottish]

This was the great myth, a player is ineligible if he doesn't have a proper registration with the EPL. In order to get that registration the EPL looks at the contract to ensure it complies with the rules, but if they don't find any irregularities in the contract at the time and grant the player registration then he's eligible to play. Most people at the time rejected the idea that you could retrospectively go back, point to the irregularities in his contract and then accuse them of fielding a player who perhaps shouldn't have been granted registration. The fact of the matter is that he wasn't ineligible at the time he was played. Moreover, when the EPL did uncover the irregularities they simply forced West Ham to negotiate a new contract and Tevez was then granted his registration again. There's therefore little reason to think that if they'd uncovered the irregularities in August Tevez wouldn't have played exactly the same number of games.

 

What West Ham were actually found guilty of was having irregularities in his contract in the first place and concealing documents. They were never found guilty of breaking rules on registration or fielding an ineligible player. Read the tribunal's report and you'll see that these are the only two offences mentioned. Now, you say they "bottled it" by not deducting points, but nobody has ever been deducted points for these offences before (West Ham were the first team to break the rules on third party ownership and concealing documents isn't an offence worthy of a points deduction). Why do you think that offences which essentially had no impact on the pitch should have a bearing on league standings? That's letting legal debates about paperwork determine who gets promoted/relegated at the end of the season.

 

 

Was Tevez owned by a third party?

[K-9]

Was Tevez owned by a third party?

He still is!!

[Dandyjam]

This was being spoke about on Talksport this morning and getting tired of it now. Had the Premier League just docked West Ham points in the games Tevez scored in or just relegated them in the first place rather than piss about, take ages and just dish out a fine then there wouldn't be this shambles there is now.

 

Whole can of worms opened up with everyone involved in this scenario that thinks they've lost out wanting some sort of compensation and is now a total farce!

[bland_flabbis]

Was Tevez owned by a third party?

 

That's not an argument against what I posted. I already said that the irregularities in his contract (breaking the rules on third party ownership) didn't make Tevez an ineligible player and would, more than likely, not have resulted in him missing any more games in that season had West Ham been found out in August. Why should offences which take place entirely off the pitch and don't give a team an unfair advantage on it be punished by a points penalty? Let football take care of itself and punish these kinds of offences with fines.

[NorthernLights24]

And so it continues....

 

In the latest twist to the Carlos Tevez saga, Fulham have submitted a claim for